[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6455-S6508]
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.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana retains the floor.


                           Amendment No. 4058

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I wonder if I can inquire from the Senator 
from New Hampshire what amount of time he requests we yield on this?
  Mr. SMITH. I believe under the request I had 20 minutes. Probably 
very close to that amount of time.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, may I just make a unanimous-consent 
request before the Senator makes his statement? I ask unanimous consent 
that Linda Taylor, a fellow in my office, be given the privilege of the 
floor during the pendency of S. 1745.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 18 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. COATS. I yield all time remaining to the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, some things are very predictable around 
here. One of the most predictable is that somebody every year gets up 
there in the authorization debate and tries to kill the ASAT Program. 
This is not a harmless amendment. This is a very serious amendment that 
can do damage to the national security of the United States.
  I might say very bluntly and honestly, I do not have any parochial 
interest in this. I have a national interest in this. There is not 
anybody working on this in my State. It is not a jobs issue in my 
State. This is a national security matter, and year after year I stand 
up and engage in debate on this, and in committee, as the opponents 
continue to go after this program.
  This amendment is designed to kill ASAT, to kill the kinetic energy 
program plain and simple. That is exactly what it is designed to do. 
That is what they are trying to do. We have invested $245 million in 
this program. We have 2 years left, at approximately $75 million a 
year, to complete this program. This technology works. It has already 
been tested. It works. We are going to throw it down the tube, throw it 
away.
  What is ironic to me is that some of the things that Senator Bingaman 
has said on this issue are reasonable. In fact, I offered to work with 
the Senator in committee to address his concerns over the section 
dealing with the space architect. But, we could not reach a compromise. 
There was no interest in having a compromise. He wants the whole thing. 
He wants to defeat it.
  So here we are again, rather than simply addressing the concerns that 
he has over the space architect issue, the Senator from New Mexico now 
is going after the entire program--all or nothing.
  The truth is, this amendment circumvents the authorization and 
appropriations process totally. It allows the space architect to 
singlehandedly decide if the Pentagon spends the money that has been 
authorized and appropriated in both 1996 and 1997 for ASAT.

[[Page S6456]]

 That is an assault on the jurisdiction of this committee, the Armed 
Services Committee, and the Appropriations Committee. There is a 
process in place, a correct process, to seek reprogramming or 
rescissions, and that works pretty well around here. But to say that 
the space architect, whose identity I would venture to say very few of 
my colleagues even know, can decide whether or not he wants to comply 
with the law, this represents an enormous erosion of the Senate's 
jurisdiction and particularly that of the Armed Services and 
Appropriations Committees.
  We voted on this issue many times, both Republicans and Democrats, 
under Democrat control, under Republican control. The Senate has always 
gone on record in support of this program, and yet the assaults 
continue. The Armed Forces have testified that they need this 
capability. The Armed Forces have said they need this capability. The 
taxpayers have invested millions in its development. Now, when we are 
so close to completing the program, why kill it? You should not kill it 
on the money, because you have invested so much, but more important--
much more important--you should not kill it because of the technology.
  Let us talk a little bit about why it makes no sense to kill it and 
why it is a threat to our national security to do that.
  The global spread of advanced satellite technology has made it 
possible for countries to obtain this high-definition imagery for 
satellites in low orbit or to buy that information. This data is 
crucial because in a future conflict, the United States has to be able 
to neutralize a hostile satellite. How are you going to do that? This 
is how you do it, with kinetic energy ASAT. But at present, we do not 
have that capability. We simply do not have the capability.
  If you think back, during the gulf war, the Iraqi Air Force was 
destroyed or forced out of the air in the first few days of fighting, 
and Iraq had no reconnaissance capability. This lack of Iraqi overhead 
surveillance made it possible for the allies to mass their forces and 
sweep across the desert to bring a swift conclusion to a war that could 
have cost thousands--thousands --of American casualties.
  Gen. Charles Horner, Desert Storm air commander, said that the 
diplomacy that we used convinced France and Russia not to sell 
reconnaissance data to Iraq. Suppose they had it? We had no way to stop 
them with that kind of reconnaissance. ASAT destroys those satellites, 
Mr. President. Why would anyone want to stop that technology?
  Satellites that can be placed up in the air, over the Earth in low 
orbit with a capability to spy on the United States, spy on our forces, 
collect data, transmit data, what does ASAT do? What does this 
satellite do? It disables. It disables that satellite and keeps that 
enemy from collecting that information.
  Why would anyone want to deny the United States of America the 
capability to do that? It baffles me. I cannot understand it. Every 
year, year after year, we have to take the same position--for 6 years I 
have done it--defending this system, while those in this Congress and 
some in the administration try to kill it, try to kill the capability 
of the United States to take out a satellite that could destroy 
American forces.
  Some say, ``Well, nobody out there has any capability for satellites. 
What do we need ASAT for?'' According to the U.S. Space Command, 
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, 
Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, 
Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, 
and Ukraine, to name 30. They do not have any capability? It is out 
there, folks.
  You say some of those are friendly countries. That is right, and they 
sell this technology and there are a lot of people out there buying it.
  ``Why not just jam them?'' they say. We do not have the capability to 
do that.
  A U.S. antisatellite capability--and this is a very important point, 
I cannot emphasize this strongly enough to my colleagues--is a 
disincentive for a potential adversary to spend their resources on 
military satellites. A U.S. kinetic energy ASAT could help constrain 
the proliferation of such systems. Why would somebody want to spend 
hundreds of millions of dollars to develop satellites to put in space 
to spy on us or to use to collect data against our forces if they know 
we can disable them or disarm them? The chances are they will not. Yet, 
here we are, here we are, saying, ``Let's kill the program.''
  Russia leads the world in space launches of military satellites.
  Ukraine is building a series of radar satellites.
  China is launching military recon satellites and have been doing it 
for 20 years. They are selling space launches and satellite technology 
all over the world.
  United Arab Emirates reportedly has ordered a military reconnaissance 
satellite from a consortium of Russian firms.
  On and on and on, and yet we stand here on the floor today having to 
defend attacks on us, those who support this system. I have had enough 
of it, Mr. President, to be very blunt about it. I have had enough of 
it. I am tired of it. I think it is outrageous that people come down on 
this floor and put our forces at risk to try to kill the technology 
that works, that protects us.
  Let me repeat, had Saddam Hussein had the capability, had he had 
these satellites, we would have lost thousands of Americans because we 
could not have disabled them. We have the technology. It works. Why are 
we not using it?
  It does not make any sense, Mr. President, not to continue this 
technology. This technology was designed, developed, manufactured, and 
integrated under the Kinetic Energy ASAT Demonstration Validation 
Program from 1990 to 1993 and ground tested, and it works. Here we are 
having to defend it from these attacks.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. SMITH. The distinguished chairman, Senator Thurmond, has asked 
for a little of my time, so I will just conclude by saying, if we lose 
this vote and lose this technology and end this technology, ASAT, it, 
in my opinion, will be a direct threat to the thousands of American men 
and women all over the world who wear the uniforms of the Armed Forces 
of the United States.
  It is an unprecedented erosion of our constitutional prerogative. 
When we take the oath to the Constitution, we take an oath to protect 
and defend America. This protects and defends America. I have been 
hearing a lot of this talk. I have heard some of it already, and we 
will hear a lot more, about how we are going to do this stuff with 
lasers, disable all these satellites with laser technology, that that 
is the thing of the future. It might be, but it is not here yet. What 
are we going to do here in between?
  For those who might not care about the military application--or maybe 
you care about space junk--kinetic energy ASAT disables satellites. It 
does not break them up into hundreds of pieces and create space junk. 
It disables them. It is a very important point.
  I would think the Senate would want to think long and hard before 
ending this technology because this amendment will do that. That is 
what it is designed to do.
  There will be another amendment coming to cut the funding off just in 
case this one does not work. We face that every year.
  I want to conclude on this point, Mr. President. I have been on the 
Armed Services Committee here in the U.S. Senate under Democrat and 
Republican leadership. We have fought this fight every year. And 
Democrats, when they were in the majority, were some of the strongest 
supporters on that committee of this program.
  This is not a Republican-Democrat issue here. This is a national 
security issue. It deserves to be supported. Why some in the 
administration have taken the position that it ought not to be, and 
some in the Senate, I do not know. But I know this is dangerous. This 
is a dangerous amendment. I do not say that about very many amendments 
on this floor. This is a dangerous amendment. This could cost American 
lives,

[[Page S6457]]

and not too far in the distant future either. This could be very close 
in the immediate future. This could cost American lives.
  We have the technology to disable satellites. We ought to use it. It 
is proven. We have expended roughly two-thirds of the money. It is in 
place. The military supports it. And those policymakers who do not are 
ill-advised. They are wrong. They are absolutely wrong. We have an 
obligation to stand up and be heard on this, when these kinds of things 
happen.
  So I am proud to say, Mr. President, that I support this program, not 
for any parochial reasons, but for national security reasons. I am 
standing here on the floor today because this system works. It is 
necessary for the security of the United States of America. It protects 
American lives. It ought to be funded fully. It ought not to be in any 
way diminished.
  So I ask my colleagues, please, do not fall for this faulty line, 
this false information, and to support kinetic energy ASAT.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 3 minutes, 
20 seconds.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, first, I want to commend the able 
Senator from New Hampshire for the excellent remarks he has made on 
this subject. He has made a very emphatic case for our side. I am very 
proud that he has done that today.
  Mr. President. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
Senator from New Mexico. A similar variation of the amendment was 
offered in the committee during markup and it was not accepted.
  The Congress has authorized and/or appropriated funds for the kinetic 
energy antisatellite technology program since 1985. For the past 3 
years the administration has not complied with the law and obligated 
the funds for the program. Every year, as a result, we have to take 
actions to force the Department to comply with legislation to compel 
them to obligate the funds for this particular program.
  Mr. President, the Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Bob Davis, 
has stated on many occasions that there is a need to develop systems to 
counter the space threat. The Congress has supported the kinetic energy 
antisatellite technologies for that purposes, as well as other 
technologies which are not ready for production or are years away from 
deployment. The KE-ASAT program is the only near-term program to meet a 
potential enemy satellite threat.
  The U.S military relies on space for surveillance, communications, 
navigation, and attack warning. It is important for the United States 
to ensure its freedom to use space. If our adversaries achieve the 
ability to control space and the United States does not have the 
capability to turn this around, we will lose our military advantage.
  Mr. President, I, again, oppose the amendment offered by the Senator 
from New Mexico and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum for Robert 
T. Howard, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Budget by Jay M. 
Garner, Lieutenant General, USA, commanding, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Department of the Army,


                          Space and Strategic Defense Command,

                                   Arlington, VA, January 3, 1996.
     Memorandum for MG Robert T. Howard, Deputy Assistant 
         Secretary of the Army for Budget.
     Subject: Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Technology 
         Funding Reduction.
       1. USASSDC nonconcurs with action proposed by Program 
     Budget Decision 719, which rescinds $30M from the ASAT 
     program in support of the Bosnia Supplemental. USASSDC 
     believes kinetic energy technology will prove to be a vital 
     capability for the future. In addition, the kill vehicle 
     currently being tested may have applicability to other 
     programs.
       2. The total KE ASAT technology program encompasses four 
     years (FY96-99) at a cost of $180M, which includes the $30M 
     currently being considered for rescission. The program is 
     structured to develop incremental technology improvements 
     (and possible insertion into other programs), necessary kill 
     vehicle and booster procurements, and testing. For example, 
     in FY96, weapon control system integration, software 
     upgrades, and kill vehicle refurbishment will be accomplished 
     in support of a planned hover test. This hover test, along 
     with kill vehicle qualification testing and hardware in the 
     loop simulation planned for FY97 will facilitate full up 
     flight tests during FY98. As in the past, we expect continued 
     Congressional funding and support of this program to not 
     affect Army's research and development account, or overall 
     total obligation authority (TOA). Based on this level of 
     funding a contingency deployment capability will be achieved 
     by FY99.
       3. The current contract with Rockwell will terminate on 
     January 31, 1996. If allowed to do so, ASAT contingency 
     capability will be delayed by a minimum of one year depending 
     on when funding is made available.
       4. Point of contact for this action is LTC Robert M. Shell 
     at (703) 607-1934.

                                                Jay M. Garner,

                                               Lieutenant General,
                                                  USA, Commanding.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bingaman amendment 
on ASAT programs. His amendment would simply remove two very onerous 
provisions from the bill and permit the Department of Defense ``Space 
Architect'' to complete a study we have required, and determine which 
anti-satellite technologies are most appropriate for the U.S. military.
  His amendment would not kill the ASAT Program, as its opponents have 
charged. In fact, his amendment would leave in place $75 million for 
U.S. ASAT programs, which was added by the committee majority, for the 
ASAT Program. This is funding the administration did not request, but 
which was added by the majority.
  I believe it would be appropriate to eliminate the funding as well as 
the two provisions in the bill, because I do not believe there is a 
need to fund this ASAT Program. But this amendment by Senator Bingaman 
is a compromise that would leave in place all the funding added by the 
Committee majority, but strip out the two provisions that were in the 
bill. It would leave the Department of Defense the option of pursuing 
the kinetic energy ASAT Program if it is considered appropriate 
technology. But the bill mandates that the Pentagon choose the KE ASAT, 
without even knowing the results of the current study being conducted 
by the ``Space Architect.''
  So the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman is a very reasonable 
compromise that leaves open all ASAT options while keeping $75 million 
that was not even requested by the Administration. Although I do not 
believe that this funding is justified, I think the underlying 
provisions in the bill are totally unjustified and should be rejected 
by the Senate.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Bingaman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. At this time, not to interrupt the debate, I would like, 
if the Senator from New Mexico is finished, to move the amendment, or 
at least ask for the yeas and nays. Let me just ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I did want to conclude my debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table is not in order at this 
point.
  Mr. SMITH. I will withhold.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico controls 10 
minutes, 52 seconds.


                    Amendment No. 4058, As Modified

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I am informed by the floor staff 
that I need to send a modification to the desk. It is a technical 
modification to make it clear as to which page and which line is being 
proposed for striking in this amendment. I send that modification to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       Beginning on page 33, strike out line 3 and all that 
     follows through page 34, line 2, and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following:

[[Page S6458]]

     SEC. 212. SPACE CONTROL ARCHITECTURE STUDY.

       (a) Required Consideration of Kinetic Energy Tactical 
     Antisatellite Program.--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, let me just respond briefly. I do not 
think I will take the full 10 minutes. The Senator from New Hampshire 
says that this amendment that I have offered is an effort to kill the 
ASAT Program. That is clearly not true. There is nothing in the 
amendment that I have offered which in any way tries to delete or 
reduce or diminish funding for an ASAT Program. I made it very clear 
that I support that funding. The funding remains in the bill.
  The Senator from New Hampshire is saying that the Pentagon is trying 
to kill its own ASAT capability. I have real trouble understanding that 
logic or believing that that is a credible line of argument.
  The real question we are trying to pose here, Mr. President, is, 
should we allow the Pentagon to come forward with their own 
recommendation on what makes the most sense, what is the best option 
for an ASAT capability, or should we prejudge that?
  I remember a story that I heard when I was in school about how Henry 
Ford used to say, ``You can have any color of Model-T Ford that you 
want as long as it's black.'' What we are saying here in the existing 
bill to the Pentagon is, ``You can pursue any option you want to obtain 
ASAT capability as long as you take the one we want you to take.'' That 
is not a smart way for us to proceed. We do not have the technical 
capability here in the U.S. Senate to prejudge this study that the 
Pentagon is engaged in.
  My colleague from New Hampshire says that the military supports this 
kinetic energy ASAT capability; they want to go ahead and fund it. If 
that is true, then why do we have to mandate in the bill that they have 
to fund it? Why do we have to mandate in the bill that they cannot 
spend any money for these other purposes unless they fund it, unless 
they choose that option?
  I think clearly what the majority in the committee is trying to do in 
this bill is to take away the options of the Pentagon and say the 
Pentagon has to fight the way we say or else we will impose sanctions 
upon them.
  My colleague from New Hampshire says that anyone who would support 
this amendment, the amendment I have offered, is trying to put our 
forces at risk. Why is it putting our forces at risk to let the 
Pentagon decide what makes the most sense, what is the most effective 
for protecting our forces? I have real difficulty understanding that 
kind of logic.
  Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered is not an effort to 
kill the ASAT Program. It is not an effort to reduce funding for the 
ASAT Program. There is nothing in the amendment that does either of 
those things. What it says is, let us give them the money, let us give 
them the ability to come back and recommend to us the proper use of 
that money to gain the greatest capability for protecting our own 
forces. To me that is common sense. I have great difficulty seeing why 
we even have to argue about it.

  I am reminded, as I hear the debate raging around here, that when I 
was practicing law, a more senior member of the bar early on in some of 
the trial practice I engaged in said there is a simple rule in trying a 
lawsuit. When the facts are on your side, pound away at the facts; when 
the law is on your side, pound away at the law; when neither are on 
your side, pound away at the table. That is what is happening here. 
Neither the facts nor the law nor common sense are on the side of those 
who put this provision in the bill.
  We clearly should delete this provision. Let the Pentagon make its 
own recommendations as to what option is best for our troops. That is 
what I favor doing. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield the remainder of the time to the able Senator 
from New Hampshire, and I ask unanimous consent that 2 additional 
minutes be allowed the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to an additional 2 
minutes, but I would like 2 minutes on my side.
  Mr. THURMOND. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized for up to 2 
minutes and 58 seconds.
  Mr. SMITH. I will respond to my friend from New Mexico. We worked 
very closely together on the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee. I 
will not pound the table. I am not even going to raise my voice. The 
truth of the matter--and the Senator knows this full well--the 
administration did not request any funding in their budget for the ASAT 
Program.
  Unless I am missing something in the logic here--I do not believe I 
am; maybe the Senator would like me to miss it and would like others to 
miss it--unless I misunderstand something, if the administration does 
not request it and the policy folks do not want it, if we send it back 
to the space architect, who is a policy person, to study it, you can 
pretty well conclude what the results will be. They will not fund it.
  When I say this is a deliberate attempt to kill the Kinetic Energy 
ASAT Program, I mean what I say. It is true. It will kill it. The other 
thing that we need to understand here, the Army supports the Kinetic 
Energy ASAT Program. They objected to the rescission list. They 
objected to this being listed as a rescission item. They did not win 
the debate. The policy people won.
  The Senator's amendment sends this back to the space architect. He 
will study it diligently over the next few weeks, months, whatever it 
takes, and then announce that we do not need it, and kill it. This is 
not an objective decision here. This person was not objective. This 
person made up his mind already. He does not want it. If he wanted it, 
he would have funded the remainder of it, which has already been--as we 
said earlier, we have already expended $245 million on this program, 
and we have already proven that it works, and we already have the 
technology in place. All we are asking for is the completion. That is 
the reason why this is a killer amendment.
  We should not be cute about the process here. When somebody opposes 
something, you give it back to them to make the decision, you can 
pretty well

[[Page S6459]]

guess what the decision is going to be. That is a little bit 
disingenuous. They did not fund it. The administration does not want 
this program. The administration is getting quite a reputation around 
here for not expending moneys that we have appropriated and authorized. 
They are getting pretty good at it, and they are doing it without 
legislation. They are just doing it. They are just saying, ``We do not 
want this, so even though you authorized it and appropriated it, we are 
not going to spend it.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico has 7 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, again I will not take the full 7 
minutes, but let me conclude by saying that I think there is clearly a 
failure to communicate here on this issue.
  My colleague from New Hampshire says that the Army wants this 
program. Looking at the facts: The administration asked for a fairly 
healthy defense budget; the Armed Services Committee, in the bill that 
is before the Senate here, added about over $12 billion to that--
something in that range. In order to come up with that additional 
money, we went to each of the services and said, ``What is on your wish 
list? Are there things you would like to have funded that we were not 
able to fund, or that the President did not request, or that the 
Pentagon did not request, the Secretary of Defense did not request?'' 
The Army gave us over $2 billion worth of those, more like $3 billion. 
I am not sure of the exact amount.
  Again, there was nothing in there for this ASAT capability. The 
argument that the Army wants this, they just never want us to give them 
any money for it, is a hard one for me to understand. I think, clearly, 
this is not a program I am trying to kill. We are not touching the 
money. The money has been added here, and we are saying, ``Fine, let's 
go ahead and spend the money for whichever option the Pentagon wants to 
pursue.'' But let the Pentagon make the judgment. Do not try to 
prejudge the right technology in order to develop this ASAT capability. 
That is all we are saying.
  The end of the amendment that I have offered, I think, makes it very 
clear that not later than April 1, 1997, the Secretary of Defense shall 
release to the kinetic energy antisatellite program manager any funds 
appropriated in 1997 for the Kinetic Energy Tactical Antisatellite 
Program pursuant to section 221(a) unless the space architect has by 
such date submitted a notification; or a report submitted by the 
Secretary pursuant to subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to 
pursue such a program.
  What I am trying to do in my amendment is to protect the ability of 
the Pentagon to use the money in the most effective way. We are not in 
favor of mandating a result in an ongoing study where they are trying 
to make a judgment as to what is the best use of this money to protect 
our own forces.
  I have confidence that the Pentagon will make a judgment based on 
their honest and expert opinion as to what makes sense for the country 
and for our own forces. I do not think we need to prejudge that. 
Accordingly, I hope very much that my amendment will be agreed to.
  Mr. President, I ask that Senator Bumpers be added as a cosponsor to 
my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no additional debate.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent upon disposition 
of the Bingaman amendment, that Senator Ashcroft and Senator Kennedy be 
recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes each.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to table this amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and 
the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bumpers
     Rockefeller
       
  The motion to table the amendment (No. 4058), as modified, was agreed 
to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Faircloth is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Heflin and Mr. Nunn 
pertaining to the introduction of S. 1890 are located in today's Record 
under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor 
privileges be granted to Randy O'Connor, a defense fellow in my office 
for the duration of the consideration of the fiscal year 1997 Defense 
authorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Washington would 
like to be recognized. I think there has been a unanimous-consent 
request. I believe the Senator from South Carolina will be asking 
unanimous consent that Senator Murray be recognized for the time 
agreement specified. I believe, also, the Senator needs to ask the 
amendments be set aside that are now pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on 
the Murray amendment related to abortions in military hospitals be 
limited to 2 hours 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.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to include in the unanimous-consent request, if I might, that I be 
recognized to offer an amendment immediately upon the disposition of 
the Murray amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S6460]]

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest we begin debate on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending unanimous-consent request. 
Is there objection?
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest we now proceed to debate.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, can I inquire, has the Senator from 
Washington been recognized to offer her amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at this point. There was an objection to 
the unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. COATS. But that would not prevent the Senator from going ahead 
and offering her amendment; there would just not be a time constraint?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NUNN. 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. NUNN. Mr. President, if the Senator from South Carolina propounds 
the unanimous-consent request, I believe it will be agreed to now. I 
know the Senator from Arkansas first would like to make his position 
clear, and perhaps if he is recognized at this point for that, he can 
make his brief statement and then the Senator from South Carolina can 
propound the unanimous=consent request, and I believe it will be agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the Armed Services Committee for allowing me to make a statement, and I 
will say to my distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
my statement will be about just one moment, and then we will allow 
Senator Murray to go forward with her amendment.
  Mr. President, the amendment that I am going to offer, and it may not 
be after the disposition of Senator Murray's amendment but it may be 
after the disposition of a subsequent amendment, is the so-called GATT 
Glaxo amendment. I have been attempting all of this year, during the 
entirety of 1996, to bring this amendment to the floor, to have it 
debated and have it voted on. I have asked for 1 hour of debate, 30 
minutes on a side, and then let us vote up or down and dispose of this 
matter to see if we are willing or not willing to correct a massive 
abuse that we created by mistake in the GATT treaty.
  This is allowing one drug firm to prevent other generic firms from 
coming in and competing fairly in the market. It is also allowing an 
extra $5 million each day--each day--of profits that we hesitate and 
fail to correct.
  It should be a matter of honor that we correct this matter, and I am 
going on the Department of Defense bill to continue attempting to find 
a slot where Senator Brown, Senator Chafee, and the Senator from 
Arkansas, Senator Pryor, may offer this amendment and have the U.S. 
Senate go on record, once and for all, as to whether we are willing to 
correct this abusive flaw created by mistake.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able Senator from 
Arkansas for taking the position he has. I will now proceed to make the 
request.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on the Murray 
amendment, relating to abortions at military hospitals, be limited to 2 
hours, equally divided in the usual form, and 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? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 4059

  (Purpose: To repeal the restriction on use of Department of Defense 
                       facilities for abortions)

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
laid aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Ms. 
     Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Robb, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Simon, and 
     Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 4059.

  Mrs. MURRAY. 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 title VII add the following:

     SEC. 708. RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS POLICY REGARDING 
                   RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   MEDICAL FACILITIES.

       Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking out subsection (b); and
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking out ``(a) Restriction on 
     Use of Funds.--''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering to the 
fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense authorization bill--and I am 
offering it on behalf of myself, Senator Snowe, Senator Simon, Senator 
Lautenberg, Senator Robb, Senator Moseley-Braun and Senator Kennedy--is 
very simple. It strikes language adopted in last year's defense 
authorization and appropriations bills that would prohibit privately 
funded abortions from being performed at overseas military hospitals. 
This ban places women stationed overseas in an unsafe and unfair 
situation and blatantly restricts their constitutional right to choose.
  Women in our armed services sacrifice each and every day to serve our 
country. They should receive our utmost respect, honor, and gratitude. 
They certainly do not deserve to be told they must check their 
constitutional rights at the door when they are stationed overseas. My 
amendment protects their precious rights and ensures their safe access 
to quality medical services.
  Mr. President, let me just say a few things about my amendment to 
clear away any confusion that may exist.
  First, this amendment simply restores previous DOD policy. From 1973 
to 1988, a woman stationed overseas was allowed to obtain an abortion 
if she paid with private, nondefense funds. Likewise, this was DOD 
policy from 1993 till 1996. This is not some radical new idea. Quite 
the contrary, in fact. This law was in place for almost two full terms 
of the Reagan White House.
  We have had many debates on the floor of this Senate over the past 2 
years about abortion, about Federal funding, about Federal workers, 
about Medicaid. Let me be very clear, this issue is different. My 
amendment simply ensures the same rights for women in our armed 
services enjoyed by every other woman in this country.
  This amendment is merely an effort to return us to the policy of the 
past which protected women stationed in a foreign country from having 
to seek medical care from inexperienced or inadequately trained 
personnel. It is dangerous and unnecessary and just plain wrong to put 
these women, who are serving our country overseas, at risk.
  Furthermore, my amendment does not force anyone to perform an 
abortion at a military facility.
  Currently, all departments of the military function under a 
conscience clause which states that medical personnel do not have to 
participate in an abortion procedure if they have a religious, moral, 
or ethical objection.
  This amendment preserves that important conscience clause. Most 
importantly, Mr. President, it deals only with an individual's private 
funds. The 104th Congress has spent almost 2 years trying to return 
flexibility and authority to States. But under the fiscal year 1996 DOD 
bill, we have a fundamental inconsistency. We have a problem telling 
our States how to spend their money, but women in our own military are 
not afforded that privilege.

[[Page S6461]]

  Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that a woman stationed overseas 
does not always have the luxury of access to safe and quality medical 
care other than at the military hospital on her base. It is dangerous 
to force her to seek medical care in the local area. We are sending our 
women in uniform to the foreign back alley. And that is wrong.
  My amendment seeks to prevent our women in uniform from having to 
make a very difficult and potentially dangerous, life-threatening 
choice. My amendment seeks to restore our women in uniform, women 
stationed overseas, a right they have had for most of the last 23 
years. My amendment seeks to protect the constitutional rights of our 
women in uniform. They sacrifice every day for every single one of us, 
and we owe them that much. I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment. I withhold the balance of my time.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Washington 
and the amendment that was just offered, it is true this is not some 
radical new idea. This is an issue that has been debated by this body 
on a number of occasions over the past several years.
  Since 1979, the Department of Defense has had a policy of prohibiting 
the use of Federal funds to perform abortions except where the life of 
the mother would be in danger if the fetus were carried to term. The 
bill before us today carries that ban, which was enacted in last year's 
authorization bill, and it incorporates also the exceptions for rape 
and incest.
  What the Congress has always debated are the two separate questions, 
both of which are legitimate questions and both of which need to be 
debated. The separate questions are, one, whether or not a legislative 
body ought to intervene in the decisions made in Roe versus Wade by the 
Supreme Court and enact restrictions or a constitutional amendment on 
the issue of abortion. The second issue, however, is a separate issue. 
That is whether or not a taxpayer ought to be coerced into supporting 
something that goes against his or her moral conscience or moral 
beliefs.
  So in 1979, Congressman Hyde introduced the Hyde amendment, which 
essentially said that taxpayers' funds would not be used in support of 
abortion.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Washington attempts to 
address the situation as it applies only to military personnel and 
their dependents, under the argument that many of these individuals are 
deployed overseas and may find themselves in situations where 
performance of an abortion is either banned by the laws of that country 
or there are situations which are not of the quality or safety that 
women would seek.

  But it ignores the fact that the Department of Defense has had in 
place a policy which allows women the opportunity to seek an abortion 
with their own funds at essentially a hospital of their choice. The 
Department of Defense makes military transportation available to these 
women.
  What we are really dealing with here is the question of whether or 
not Federal funds should be used in the performance of abortions. It is 
also important to note that during the time that the policy prohibiting 
the use of Federal funds to perform abortions in military facilities, 
during the time that that policy has been in effect, there has been no 
difficulty in implementing the policy, there have been no formal 
complaints filed concerning the policy, there have been no legal 
challenges instituted concerning this policy, and no members of the 
military or their dependents have been denied access to an abortion as 
a result of the policy.
  So it is simply not accurate to say that the policy currently in 
effect places women in an unfair situation and, to quote the Senator 
from Washington, ``blatantly restricts their constitutional rights.'' 
This does not restrict the constitutional rights of women at all. Let 
me repeat that. This policy currently in effect does not restrict the 
constitutional rights of any woman in the service, or her dependents. 
That woman has full access to an abortion, to a legal abortion under 
the law. I do not condone that. I do not support that. But that is not 
the issue we are arguing.
  The issue that we will be voting on is not whether you are pro-choice 
or pro-life. It is not whether you think a woman ought to have the 
right to choose. Military women have the right to choose. No one is 
denying their opportunity to have an abortion.
  We are simply saying that the use of Federal facilities which are 
paid for, operated by the use of Federal funds, is violative of a 
policy that the Congress has adopted on numerous occasions, described 
as the Hyde amendment, which says that essentially no Federal funds 
will be used for the performance of abortions except in certain cases, 
life of the mother, and more recently life of the mother if the fetus 
were carried to term or in the cases of rape or incest.
  There have been no recorded or official complaints, not only for 
women in uniform being denied access to an abortion, but their 
dependents being denied access to military transport for the purpose of 
procuring an abortion.
  This, I believe, was a sound and a fair policy. It worked. If it had 
not worked, there would have been complaints filed, there would have 
been challenges issued concerning the policy, there would have been 
military personnel or their dependents denied access. That was not the 
case.
  It remained in place until 1993 when President Clinton issued an 
Executive order reversing it. Under the Clinton policy, defense 
facilities were used for the first time in 14 years, not to defend 
life, but to take life, and to do so with taxpayer funds.
  Last year the House and the Senate reversed that policy when we voted 
to override the President and make permanent the ban on the use of 
Department of Defense medical facilities to perform abortions except in 
the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. So today we 
are faced again with this issue, because this amendment would strike 
that ban and reinstate the former Clinton policy regarding military 
facilities.

  Supporters of the Murray amendment will argue that this policy does 
not involve the use of taxpayer funds since women are required to pay 
for these abortions. But to maintain that fiction is simply to 
misunderstand the nature of military medicine. Unlike other medical 
facilities, military clinics and hospitals receive 100 percent of their 
funds from Federal taxpayers. Physicians in the military are Government 
employees, paid entirely by tax revenues. All of the operational and 
administrative expenses of military medicine are paid by taxpayers. All 
of the equipment used to perform the abortions are purchased at 
taxpayer expense.
  So that is the issue that is before us. Are we going to require the 
taxpayers of America, whose fundamental religious beliefs or whose 
moral beliefs or values are such that they do not approve of the use of 
their tax dollars for the Government providing an abortion, to fund 
abortions?
  It is true that the payment for this abortion will be made by the 
person seeking the abortion and not the taxpayer. But it is not true 
that taxpayers' funds are, therefore, not used in the 
procedure, because the procedure is being performed by employees whose 
entire salary is paid by the taxpayer, in a facility whose entire cost 
of construction is paid for by the taxpayer, whose entire operating 
costs are paid by the taxpayer, and which equipment used in the 
procedure is purchased at taxpayer expense.

  It is therefore impossible to imagine that taxpayer money can be 
preserved from entanglement of abortion in military medicine. Any 
attempt to do so would present an accounting nightmare, according to 
the Defense Department's own analysis. The only way to protect the 
integrity of taxpayer funds is to keep the military out of the abortion 
business. We must not take money from citizens and use it to vandalize 
their moral values.
  Mr. President, I suggest the Murray amendment is a solution in search 
of a problem. No problem has been identified. When the prohibition was 
in place, no one was denied access to an abortion.
  I repeat that for my colleagues to consider: When this policy was in 
place banning the use of military facilities to provide abortions, no 
one was denied access to an abortion. If safe, acceptable facilities 
for elective abortion

[[Page S6462]]

were not available to military women based on where they were stationed 
or living, these women were permitted to use military transport, for 
whatever reason they chose, to go wherever they wanted to go to have 
that abortion.
  Supporters of the Murray amendment have argued that in the past, 
women in the military have been stripped of their rights, but not a 
single case has been filed challenging this policy. The bottom line is 
that the need for the legislation or the President's policy has not 
been proven.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, to retain 
the present policy as enacted last year in the House-Senate conference, 
and now as part of current law, to retain that policy, because that 
policy makes imminent sense. To repeal that would violate what this 
Congress has adopted as policy many, many times over. That is, the 
intermingling of taxpayer funds for the provision of abortion.
  I reserve the balance of my time. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want the Senate to support the 
amendment offered by Senator Murray to ensure that women in the armed 
services serving overseas can exercise their constitutional right to 
choose safe abortion services. It does not require the Department of 
Defense to pay for abortions. But it repeals the current ban on 
privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. Our 
servicewomen should not lose their rights granted by the Constitution 
when they serve the country in foreign lands.
  This is an issue of fairness to the women who make significant 
sacrifices to serve our nation. They go to military bases around the 
world to protect our freedoms, but when they get there, they are denied 
access to the kind of medical care available to all women in the United 
States. Military women should be able to depend on their base hospitals 
for all their medical services. This amendment gives them access to the 
same range and quality of health care services that they could obtain 
in the United States.
  In many countries where our forces serve, that quality of care is not 
available. Without adequate care, an abortion can be a life-threatening 
or permanently disabling operation. In some countries, the blood supply 
may pose an unacceptable health risk for military personnel.
  We have a responsibility to provide safe options for U.S. 
servicewomen in these situations. Those who oppose this amendment are 
exposing servicewomen to substantial risks of infection, illness, 
infertility, or even death. We can easily avoid such risks by making 
the health facilities at overseas bases available, and it is 
irresponsible not to do so.
  In addition to the health risks of the current policy, there is a 
significant financial penalty on servicewomen and their families. 
Round-trip travel costs for a woman stationed at our Air Base in Turkey 
to travel privately back to Washington for an abortion totals over 
$2,500 and that figure does not include the cost of the medical 
procedure. For a young enlisted woman whose pretax monthly income is 
about $1,400, that cost is a significant financial hardship that women 
serving in the United States do not have to bear.

  If the enlisted woman does not have the financial means to travel 
privately to the United States, she could face significant delays 
waiting for space available military transportation. The health risks 
increase with each week. If the delays are too long, the servicewoman 
may well be forced to rely on questionable facilities in the country 
where she is stationed. For all practical purposes, she is being denied 
her right to choose.
  The decision on abortion is very difficult and extremely personal. It 
is unfair and unreasonable to make this decision so dangerous for women 
who serve our country overseas.
  Every woman in America has a constitutional right to choose to 
terminate her pregnancy. It is time for Congress to stop denying this 
right to military women serving overseas and to stop treating them as 
second-class citizens. I urge the Senate to support the Murray 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I find it very difficult to follow the logic of those 
individuals who oppose abortions at overseas Government-supported 
medical facilities because tax payers' dollars are involved, and yet 
somehow distinguish that from the Government-supported air 
transportation required to fly individuals back to the United States to 
obtain abortion services. Who in the world pays for the air 
transportation, the aircraft, and the personnel that fly the aircraft?
  The issue ought to be what is the best in terms of the health care 
for that individual. We insist on that for our military personnel. They 
are entitled to it--the very, very best. We are committed to make sure 
they get the best.
  Why should we be able to say we are going to provide quality health 
care services with this one exception, with this one area, where a 
woman is going to have to roll the dice and take her chances, based 
upon availability of flights, based upon the particular location where 
the woman is stationed? Are we going to effectively wash our hands of 
any kind of responsibility? It makes no sense. It is cruel. It is 
inhumane. It is failing to meet the health care needs of military 
personnel. We should not be able to say we will provide the best in 
health care with the exception of this one procedure.
  I think the amendment is commendable. I congratulate the Senator from 
Washington for offering it. I hope the amendment is carried.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Maine how much 
time she desires.
  Ms. SNOWE. I would like 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by Senator Murray to repeal the ban on abortions in overseas military 
hospitals. I am very pleased to cosponsor this amendment as well.
  In listening to the debate here this afternoon, I cannot help but 
think ``here we go again'' on this issue, on a woman's personal right 
to choose. We have this debate year in and year out. Congress revisits 
this issue of reproductive freedom by seeking to restrict, limit, and 
eliminate a woman's right to choose.
  This ban on abortion in overseas military facilities, reinstated last 
year, represented just more of the same. I point out these efforts to 
turn back the clock on a woman's reproductive rights will never erase 
the fact that the highest court in the land reaffirmed a woman's basic 
and fundamental right to a safe and legal abortion time after time, 
again and again, in decision after decision.
  Last year's successful effort to reinstate that ban was another 
frontal assault on the principle of reproductive freedom and the 
dignity of women's lives. We all know that this ban denies the right to 
choose for female military personnel and dependents. It denies those 
women who have voluntarily decided to serve our country in the Armed 
Forces safe and legal medical care, simply because they were assigned 
to duty in other countries.
  What kind of reward is that? Why does this Congress want to punish 
those women who so bravely serve our country overseas by denying them 
the rights that are guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution?
  It did not occur to me that women's constitutional rights were 
territorial. It did not occur to me that when American women in our 
Armed Forces get visas and passports stamped when they go abroad, they 
are supposed to leave their fundamental constitutional rights at the 
proverbial door.
  I think it is regrettable that in this debate we are talking about 
denying women their rights because they are serving in our military in 
overseas facilities. We are denying them their option to have a safe 
and legal medical procedure because they happen to be working for this 
country overseas. The taxpayers are not required to pay for this 
procedure. This procedure is paid for by the woman's personal fund. 
That is the way it was, under the law, between 1979 and 1988. And as we 
know, at that time, in 1988, the policy was reversed. It was reinstated 
to lift the ban in 1993.
  I, frankly, cannot understand why we are suggesting that there should 
be a two-tiered policy for women if they happen to serve in the 
military overseas. We are saying, by virtue of that

[[Page S6463]]

fact, you will not have the same medical care in this legal procedure 
that is recognized under the law in this country, and has been 
reaffirmed time and again by the highest court in the land.
  Military personnel stationed overseas still vote, they pay taxes, 
they are protected and, as well, are punished under U.S. law. Whether 
we agree about the issue of abortion, or not, we do not have the right 
to deny them their right to have access to a legal and safe medical 
procedure. What we are saying is that this ban, basically, forces women 
to put their health at risk. They will be forced to seek out unsafe 
medical care in countries where the blood supply is not safe, in many 
instances, where the procedures are antiquated, where their equipment 
may not be sterile. I do not believe it is appropriate, nor right, to 
force our military personnel to make additional sacrifices beyond the 
ones they are already making in serving their country.
  Now, we are not saying that we should force any medical personnel to 
perform this procedure. There is a conscience clause for all three 
services in the Armed Forces. No one is required to perform this 
procedure. If they have a moral, religious, or ethical objection to 
abortion, they do not have to participate in this procedure. I think we 
all think that is reasonable. But what is unreasonable is saying to 
women: Sorry, we are not going to allow you to have the same medical 
rights if you serve in the military because you happen to be overseas. 
I do not see anything reasonable about that standard. It is unfair, and 
it is dangerous.
  Last year, the New York Times, I think, expressed the bottom line on 
this ban when they said in an editorial: ``They can fight for their 
country, they can die for their country, but they cannot get access to 
a full range of medical services when their country stations them 
overseas.''
  I really think that this becomes an extreme policy. It puts women in 
a crisis position, and we in this Chamber have to stand up and say 
enough is enough. Unfortunately, someday, it may be too late when we 
finally do.
  So I hope that the Members of this Senate will support the amendment 
that has been offered by Senator Murray from Washington, because it is 
an appropriate, reasonable approach to a very difficult issue. I do not 
think that we want to be in a position of requiring women who serve in 
our military to be subjected to or be victim to unsafe medical 
procedures because we happen to differ with that procedure. This is 
their money, and it is their right to make this decision. It is a 
procedure recognized by the law of this country and by the Supreme 
Court. We owe it to them to have the right to make that decision and, 
obviously, they are going to pay for it. And now we are saying that we 
are sorry, we are going to deny them this option under very difficult 
circumstances.
  There are not many options available to a woman stationed overseas, 
who has to make this very difficult and personal decision to terminate 
a pregnancy. So I hope that we will consider this in the proper 
context. It is her right to make that decision under the law of this 
land. That should apply to them when they are serving this country 
overseas.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators 
Murray and Snowe in offering an amendment to repeal the restrictions 
barring American women serving overseas from accessing abortion 
services in military hospitals.
  This amendment simply grants women who have volunteered to serve and 
protect their country the same rights as every other American woman. 
This amendment allows them to pay their own funds to access medical 
care at a military hospital if they choose to terminate a pregnancy. 
This amendment allows women serving this country to avoid increasing 
military expenses by having to leave the host country to travel to the 
United States to seek medical care that is available in a nearby 
military medical facility.
  Women in the military are fighting to protect the constitution of the 
United States. We should not deny these women their constitutional 
rights, rights enjoyed in every State in the Union. The right to choose 
to have an abortion is protected by our Constitution.
  It would be unconscionable to force women serving overseas to seek 
the services of hospitals in host countries. We have no way of ensuring 
that these hospitals have sufficiently trained employees, standards of 
sanitation comparable to those in America, or adequate facilities. Our 
military hospitals maintain world class facilities.
  Before 1974, hundreds of women died or suffered terribly because they 
had abortions outside of proper medical facilities. Women serving this 
country should not face that prospect again.
  One of the reasons we have military hospitals is to ensure that our 
military personnel get the best medical treatment possible. Women 
serving overseas have already volunteered to risk their lives in order 
to protect this country. We cannot place an additional and senseless 
risk upon them by turning them away from military medical care.
  This ban also affects women who are not even in the military 
themselves. Wives of military personnel also utilize military hospitals 
overseas. These women have sacrificed in order to move overseas to keep 
their families intact. Denying their access to quality care if they 
choose to terminate a pregnancy is no way to thank them.
  I would like to point out that this amendment in no way forces anyone 
to abrogate their religious or moral beliefs. All three branches of the 
military have a ``conscience clause'' which will remain intact. The 
clause permits medical personnel who have any objection to abortion to 
not participate in the procedure.
  There was never any Congressional consultation when, in 1988, the 
Department of Defense issued an administrative order prohibiting women 
from obtaining abortion services in military facilities overseas. Prior 
to 1988, women could obtain abortions in military facilities with 
private funds. President Clinton lifted the ban by Executive Order on 
January 20, 1993. This amendment merely upholds a policy that is 
currently in effect and was before 1988 as well.
  We are here today to improve the safety of women serving in the 
military overseas. We are here today to protect wives living overseas 
with their military husbands. We are here today to uphold what has been 
confirmed as a constitutional right time and time again since Roe 
versus Wade in 1974. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment 
today.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support Senator Murray's amendment 
to repeal the provision of current law that prohibits a woman in the 
armed services from using her own funds to pay for an abortion in an 
overseas U.S. military facility. I support this amendment for several 
reasons.
  First, the Supreme Court has clearly established a woman's right to 
choose. That right is not suspended simply because a woman serves in 
the U.S. military or is married to a U.S. servicemember.
  Second, women based in the United States and using a U.S.-based 
military facility are not prohibited from using their own funds to pay 
for an abortion. Having a prohibition on the use of U.S. military 
facilities overseas creates a double standard, and an undue hardship on 
women servicemembers stationed overseas.
  Third, private facilities may not be readily available in other 
countries. For example, abortion is illegal in the Philippines. A woman 
stationed in that country or the spouse of a servicemember would need 
to fly to the U.S. or to another country--at her own expense--to obtain 
an abortion. We don't pay our servicemembers enough to assume they can 
simply jet off to Switzerland for medical treatment.
  Fourth, if women do not have access to military facilities or to 
private facilities in the country they are stationed, they could 
endanger their own health by the delay involved in getting to a 
facility or by being forced to seek an abortion by someone other than a 
licensed physician.
  We know from personal experience in this country that when abortion 
is illegal, desperate women are often forced into unsafe and life-
threatening situations in back alleys. If it were your wife, or your 
daughter, would you want her in the hands of an untrained abortionist 
on the back streets of Manila or Cordoba, Argentina? Or would you 
prefer that she have access to medical treatment by a trained physician 
in a U.S. military facility?
  Not only would these women be risking their health and lives under 
normal

[[Page S6464]]

conditions, but what if these women are facing complicated or life-
threatening pregnancies and are unaware of the seriousness of their 
condition?
  We are asking these women to risk their lives in the service of their 
country.
  Current law does not force any military physician to perform an 
abortion against his or her will. All branches have a ``conscience 
clause'' that permits medical personnel to choose not to perform the 
procedure. What we are talking about today is providing equal access to 
military medical facilities, wherever they are located, for a legal 
procedure paid for with one's own money.
  Abortion is legal for American women. U.S. servicemembers would pay 
with their own funds. To deny them access to medical treatment they can 
trust is wrong. It's that simple. I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Murray 
amendment.
  This amendment will repeal the bill's ban on privately funded 
abortions at military medical facilities overseas.
  Let's be very clear what we're talking about here today. It is a very 
simple question. Are women who are defending our Nation women who 
sacrifice every day in military service to our country going to be 
treated as second class citizens when it comes to the health care they 
receive?
  The bill before us answers ``yes'' to that question. Mr. President, 
that is simply unacceptable. Our military women are not second-class 
citizens and we cannot treat them as if they were.
  Mr. President, safe and legal access to abortion is the law of the 
land. It is a matter of simple fairness that our servicewomen, as well 
as the spouses and dependents of servicemen, be able to exercise that 
right when they are stationed overseas.
  When people enlist in the Armed Services, they do not choose where 
they are to be stationed. They go where our military decides they are 
needed. They are often sent to remote locations where the only access 
to quality, safe medical care is in a military facility.
  While they are sent all over the world to defend our freedoms, isn't 
the very least we owe them the right to exercise the same freedoms they 
would enjoy if they remained here at home?
  By adopting this amendment we will enable military women to exercise 
their right to reproductive freedom. The amendment does not involve the 
use of any taxpayer funding. What this amendment will ensure is the 
right of women to obtain a safe and legal abortion paid for with their 
own funds. And, of course, under this amendment the conscience clause 
for military personnel who do not wish to perform abortions would be 
retained. So no military personnel would be compelled to perform 
abortions.
  Adoption of this amendment will ensure that women in the Armed 
Services have access to safe medical care. Let's do the right thing. 
Let's not treat our servicewomen like second-class citizens. They give 
so much in service to our country. They deserve no less than to be 
treated fairly by us.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the language in this bill is an 
unsupportable effort to take away a fundamental, legal right from women 
in uniform and female military dependents overseas--the right to use 
their own funds to obtain a legal abortion.
  The amendment we are considering today is simply a return to previous 
DOD policy that stood for many, many years.
  It is, quite simply, about treating these women fairly and equitably, 
and giving them the same rights that women in this country have.
  These women are in service to their country--our country--overseas, 
protecting our fundamental freedoms.
  But this ban would deny them the same freedom that women in this 
country are granted--the right to safe, legal, and comprehensive 
reproductive services.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Murray-Snowe amendment, and 
strike this offensive language from the bill. We have no right to ask 
these women to sacrifice more than they already have in service to 
their country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 3 or 4 minutes?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would just like to inquire of the 
Senator from Washington. If I understand the situation correctly, if a 
woman were coming back to the United States, by and large she has to 
ask for leave, does she not, to be able to come back to the United 
States?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that she would 
have to ask for leave to come back to the United States in order to 
have the medical procedure take place.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is my understanding that there may have to be reasons 
stated for the leave, in some circumstances, depending on the 
particular situation. I would call that sort of a violation of privacy. 
But in some areas, in some situations, as I understand it, they may 
very well have to reveal the reasons for that leave. Or if they were to 
return to the United States and have the procedure and develop 
complications and needed more time, they would have to request 
additional leave time and, more often than not, they would have to 
indicate their reasons for it.
  Now, of course, if a woman made the decision here in the United 
States and then ran into complications, they would have to justify why 
they were not meeting military requirements, in any event. But it seems 
to me that while imposing the requirements for leave, you are also 
stating, more often than not, as I understand it, that they have to 
give reasons or a justification, which is a privacy issue. If they run 
into any complications, there are additional issues both in terms of 
leave and additional privacy issues. It seems to me that this is 
another factor that might not make the greatest difference to some 
individuals. But I would think that adding this kind of emotional 
trauma that is being experienced through this whole kind of a procedure 
is particularly unfortunate, and I think probably unfair, certainly, to 
the women as well. I was just interested in the Senator's understanding 
about the situation.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is 
absolutely correct. With the language as it is currently written in the 
DOD bill, without my amendment, this will force women in the military 
overseas--in Bosnia, in Turkey, or in many other places--to go to their 
supervisor and request a leave. Most likely, they would be asked to 
tell them why, which would be a very difficult situation for many. They 
would be subject to their supervisor's decision about whether or not 
they would be granted leave. That would put women in a very awkward and 
unfair position.
  I should add that, if the abortion is delayed, the woman's life 
becomes more in danger. In many circumstances, that would be delayed if 
she requested leave. It could be delayed if she traveled to this 
country. If she is granted leave and traveled to this country, as the 
Senator has stated, if the complications arise, as they can, she would 
then be subject to having to go back to that supervisor again and ask 
for additional leave.
  This is an extremely unfair situation. It can be rectified very 
easily by this amendment that would allow a woman to use her own 
private money. We are not asking for taxpayer dollars. We are saying 
that a woman can use her own money to go into the military facility 
where we have excellent personnel overseas to perform a safe medical 
procedure.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, the point was made here on the floor that the 
facility will have been built with American taxpayers' money and the 
doctors are going to be paid their salary with taxpayers' money. Does 
the Senator not find the distinction between that and having space 
available on a plane which is paid for by the taxpayers, piloted by the 
taxpayers--does the Senator find that the logic is failing in those who 
are opposed to the amendment to say that on the one hand it looks like 
it is being tax supported and on the other hand it is not? I have been 
singularly unconvinced about that part of the argument which we have 
heard time and time again this afternoon. I do not see how that logic 
holds up to the light of day.

[[Page S6465]]

  I do not know whether the Senator had some additional insight that 
might be able to clarify that.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am really glad that the Senator asked about the 
taxpayers' funds being used to build a military facility. Frankly, I 
find those arguments very offensive because, as taxpayers in this 
country, we provide dollars for many facilities across this country. 
But we have singled out women who are overseas serving us in countries 
overseas, and have told them that they cannot use their own private 
dollars to pay for a medical service in those facilities. We pay for 
many other services in those facilities, but we will not provide an 
abortion for those women. Yet, the Senator is absolutely correct; she 
will have to fly back to this country in a military plane paid for by 
taxpayer dollars. She will eat meals on that plane paid for by taxpayer 
dollars. All of us use taxpayer dollars when we travel on the roads, 
when we use our public schools, when we go to our colleges, when we 
have the police come to our house, or when we have a firetruck come to 
the House.
  Why are we singling out women who need a medical procedure and 
expanding the use of taxpayers' funds in that terminology? I find that 
very offensive.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator find offensive as well the fact that a 
woman who is in the service is paying taxpayer dollars and others who 
might want to use those facilities for this purpose are contributors 
and paying taxes? The last time I checked on it, they were. So here 
they are paying their fair share of the taxes into it. But in this 
particular time of medical need there is this arbitrary policy which 
would deny the best in terms of health care. It is being denied to 
them.
  I thank the Senator. I think she has made a very powerful case, and 
others have added to it. I hope her position will be sustained.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I will add that 
not only is that woman paying her taxes but she is serving our country 
overseas. She is serving every single one of us; making us safe here at 
home. She deserves to have us take care of her when she has a medical 
need.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Bingaman and 
Senator Inouye as cosponsors to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield for a question to the Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Would the present description of the law place an undue burden on 
women serving in the military overseas? In 1992, the Supreme Court 
decision about Planned Parenthood said that Government regulations may 
not constitute an undue burden on the right to an abortion, and this 
ban would be an undue burden by placing an obstacle in the path of the 
woman seeking an abortion.
  So would the Senator agree that this certainly would represent an 
obstacle in the path of a woman making this decision and having access 
to a safe medical procedure? Because certainly a combination of 
military regulations and the practical world would mean that someone 
who needs it, who made this decision, would face lengthy travel, 
serious delays, expenses, substandard medical options, restricted 
information, would have to fly home, and certainly in my opinion--I ask 
the Senator if she would agree--this ban appears to be 
unconstitutionally burdening the right of a woman to make this decision 
because it places a number of obstacles in the way of her making that 
decision and having access to the procedures that are available here in 
the United States which are legal under the law of the land.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would agree with the Senator. This places many undue 
obstacles in front of the woman who is serving in the military overseas 
such as asking through her supervisor for permission to leave. This is 
not something anyone here has to ask for who is serving here or who is 
not serving here. It means that a woman would have to fly home--
sometimes hours of travel, sometimes weeks of delay in getting a flight 
out of some of the countries which we are asking our young women to 
serve in. It means a delay in the medical procedure, and it puts an 
undue burden on these women which is not faced by any other woman in 
this country.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for answering that question. The 
bottom line is we are treating these people as second-class citizens if 
they do not have access to the procedures guaranteed constitutionally 
under the law of the United States simply because of the Supreme Court 
ruling.
  Mrs. MURRAY. They are not only making a sacrifice, but these are 
women who are serving our country who are every day working for every 
single one of us to make our lives safe here. They should not be 
treated as second-class citizens. They should be treated as first-class 
citizens and be given the same right that every woman in this country 
has and the access to safe medical procedures that they deserve.
  I thank the Senator from Maine.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield to me?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for her leadership on this. I am so 
pleased she has raised this issue for the Senate. As we know, this 
Congress is narrowing women's right to choose. But I think nothing 
would be more disturbing than what we have before us. As the Senator 
from Maine pointed out through her questioning and our friend brought 
out through her answers, these are women who are risking their lives by 
joining the military; are they not?

  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. They are risking their lives, just as the men do, to 
fight for their country, and indeed may die for this country. Why on 
Earth would this U.S. Senate put their health at risk? That is a major 
question.
  I ask my friend. Is there any case that she knows of where a man is 
denied a particular medical procedure?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I cannot think of any case where a man is denied a 
medical procedure who is serving in the military overseas.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wonder what my friends of the male persuasion from both 
sides of aisle would be doing on this floor if suddenly it was the case 
that men could not get help when they were stationed abroad. They would 
say, ``Well, regardless of what it is, we need our men in the military 
to be there. That is why we are sending them there.'' Yet, they would 
treat women in such a way.
  I say to my friend, what happens if a woman cannot get on a plane and 
has to go to a hospital in a country that she is stationed in? I will 
half answer that. When I went to visit the troops in Saudi Arabia 
during the Persian Gulf war, I saw the incredible health facilities 
that they had there for our men and women in uniform. But what if such 
a woman was in pain, was in a situation where she really needed help, 
and she went to the facility and was told by a military doctor, ``You 
have to go to a local hospital''? I ask my friend to talk about what 
that experience might be like in a place like Saudi Arabia where women 
cannot even drive their cars.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California brings up an excellent 
point. The way the current bill is drafted, without my amendment, it 
simply creates foreign back alleys for our women who are serving 
overseas--for those of us who were aware before Roe v. Wade, women got 
abortions in back alleys because they were not provided medical 
facilities. We have friends who are not able to have babies because of 
a procedure that was performed in a back alley. I cannot imagine this 
Senate and this Congress putting our women who serve in uniform 
overseas at risk as we did women many years ago in this country. It 
seems to me that is really disturbing--to create foreign back alleys as 
this current bill does.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I say that of all of the issues that 
we face, where women's rights to choose have been narrowed 
dramatically--if she is a Federal employee, we know that right is 
narrowed. She cannot use her insurance. But at least she is in America 
and she is here. So she will have to make a financial sacrifice, if she 
exercises that right to choose, which is a legal right.
  I think we need to understand what is going on here in this U.S. 
Senate.

[[Page S6466]]

 There are those who want a constitutional amendment to completely 
outlaw a woman's right to choose. They want to make it a crime. You 
know they cannot do it because the people of America do not support 
that. So what they are doing instead is attacking us--one group at a 
time; Federal employee women over here one day, poor women over here 
the next day, and women who live in D.C. the third day. And today it is 
women who serve in the military overseas. They are the ones who will be 
subjected to, as my friend says, the foreign back alley. Let me tell 
you, the back alleys of America were not friendly. I lived in those 
days. I know those days. If there is anything I can do, and I know the 
Senator from Maine feels as strongly--this crosses party lines--we will 
make sure that we never return to the days of the back alley.

  I think this is just one more attempt to harm the women of this 
country, the women who are sacrificing for their country. By supporting 
Senator Murray's amendment, we will go a long way in telling those 
women we respect they should not have to answer to another set of laws 
to put their health in jeopardy any more than they are put in jeopardy 
in the fact they are willing on a daily basis to lay their lives on the 
line.
  I thank my friend. I yield back my time to her.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from California for a very eloquent 
statement and for her support of this extremely important amendment 
that sends a message to women who serve our country overseas that they 
will be treated equal to any other woman who is a citizen in this 
country today.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 26\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. And how much time remains on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-eight.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President I ask my friend from Indiana if he intends 
to use any more of his time?
  Mr. COATS. I would like to respond to the statements that have been 
made, but I would tell the Senator from Washington that depending on 
whether or not she has more speakers on her side, I would be prepared 
to yield back a substantial amount of time if we could come to 
agreement on both yielding back time.
  I have been approached by some Members who have some conflicts this 
evening and are looking for a little bit of a window. One Senator on 
your side asked if it would be possible to yield back some time. So I 
guess I would inquire of the Senator from Washington what her 
intentions are in this regard.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum to be 
equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am sorry. 
The Senator from South Carolina was asking me a question and I did not 
understand or hear what was propounded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request was for a quorum call, the time to 
be equally divided.
  Mr. COATS. That is fine. And then the Senator is going to check to 
see what she has on her side and I will do the same, and if we can come 
to an agreement we will yield back our time. That is acceptable, Mr. 
President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from 
Washington for giving me some portion of the time to support the 
Murray-Snowe amendment.
  This amendment is so basic that it, frankly, kind of surprises me 
that we say to people who we have recruited to serve in our military 
that you leave your constitutional rights on the doorstep; that if you 
need medical services you are willing to pay for, we are not going to 
give them to you.
  This amendment, as it is presented, will overturn the unreasonable, 
harsh Republican policy that prohibits servicewomen from obtaining 
abortion services in overseas military facilities, once again, even if 
they are willing out of their own pockets to pay for these health 
services.
  Essentially, the current law that was passed by the Republican 
Congress forces servicewomen to leave their constitutional rights 
behind, at the water's edge.
  I am familiar, Mr. President, with the struggle to protect 
constitutional rights of servicewomen. In 1991 and 1992, I led the 
fight to overturn this policy. I had an amendment pass the Senate twice 
to overturn this unfair restriction. Unfortunately, President Bush 
threatened to veto the entire defense appropriations bill over this 
provision and thus it was dropped in conference. But the 1992 election 
changed all of this. On the second day of the Clinton administration, 
President Clinton restored servicewomen's constitutional rights by 
executive authority.
  Tragically, the Republican Congress reversed the Clinton policy. But 
they are not just reversing a Clinton policy. What they are saying to 
those individuals, who have every right under the law to make a choice 
about whether or not they continue a pregnancy, is that they will not 
be able, practically, to do it; they will not be able to have an 
abortion if they choose.
  I am not promoting abortion. I am saying every woman has a right 
under our law to make that decision. What they are saying is if you 
happen to be stationed in a country that prohibits abortion and you 
want, nevertheless, to have quality service, you are restricted. You 
can choose to go to a back alley someplace and take the terrible chance 
that involves, or else you can sometimes be standby on a flight out of 
that country to a friendlier place. The problem is these flights are 
often filled and you could wait for months--months that would, perhaps, 
put a pregnancy into a stage of development that no one would want to 
see terminated.
  So this is a terrible imposition, I think. We are asking people to 
serve. We are telling them they will be rewarded for their loyal 
service. We tell them they may undergo danger, they may in fact lose 
their lives, but they do so on behalf of their country. I salute their 
bravery and their courage. But I think it would be terrible at the same 
time to say, if you need a medical service that is available, that you 
are not going to be able to get it because you are in the military.
  So I hope our colleagues in the Senate will look at this 
realistically and say we are not encouraging any choice for anyone to 
make that is not totally their own. But we are also saying if you 
enlist, if you raise your hand, take the oath, promise to serve your 
country faithfully under virtually any condition, that you do not lose 
your rights as a woman to make a decision that is available to every 
other woman in this country.
  I yield the floor and hope the Murray-Snowe amendment, a very 
thoughtful piece of legislation, will be agreed to and will amend what 
I think is an egregious violation of a right that belongs to every 
woman in this country, particularly those who join the service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time?
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment.
  Last year, in both the National Defense Authorization Act and the 
Defense appropriations bill, the Congress spoke on this issue. Both of 
these bills included a prohibition on performing abortions in military 
hospitals and clinics overseas except in cases of rape, incest, and 
where the life of the mother is at risk. The President signed both of 
these bills.
  Now, Senator Murray is proposing that we repeal the law enacted last 
year. I would suggest that more debate on abortion within the Senate is 
not going to change any Senator's vote. I

[[Page S6467]]

hope we can agree to limit the discussion and vote.
  I just want to say this. There is a question here whether you are 
going to have abortions wide open for any purpose, any time, any place, 
or you are only going to have them in cases of rape, incest, and where 
the life of the mother is at risk. That is the issue here. I think 
Senators ought to understand it.
  If you want to preserve life except in cases of rape, incest, and 
where the life of the mother is at risk, then you oppose the amendment 
of the Senator from Washington. But if you favor wide open abortions, 
as I said, at any time, any place, for any purpose, then, of course, 
you support her in this amendment.
  Mr. President, I oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank the 
distinguished Senator from Washington. I thank her for her leadership 
on this particular amendment.
  This is a matter that we have considered a number of times. We are 
all familiar with the arguments. I describe my position, not as pro-
abortion, but as pro-choice. I believe that abortions ought to be safe, 
legal, and rare. But I do not think, under any circumstances, that we 
ought to deprive those people who happen to be stationed overseas from 
having the same legal and safe medical procedures that are available to 
those of us here in the United States.
  I respect the very significant differences of opinion for ethical, 
moral, and religious reasons that many hold. This is not asking that 
the Federal Government provide any funds. It simply is allowing those 
folks who are stationed overseas to use the facilities.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COATS. I have been discussing with the Senator from Washington 
the timing here. I have some responses I would like to make to 
statements that have been made. I do not anticipate that will take more 
than 10 minutes at the most, probably less. I know the Senator from 
Washington has indicated an interest in just taking a couple of minutes 
to wrap up the debate in support of her amendment, at which point, I 
believe, we would both be ready to go to a vote.
  I say that to notify Members, who may be watching the debate who are 
interested in when we will vote, it appears we will vote earlier than 
the time originally projected, in terms of the 2-hour debate, maybe as 
early as the next 10 or 15 minutes. I just say that to alert Members.
  I would like to respond to some of the things that have been said 
relative to the Murray amendment. I sit here somewhat baffled by the 
remarks that I have heard, because it sounds to me as if a crisis 
situation exists that is in immediate search of solution, relative to 
female members of our armed services and their dependents obtaining the 
right to have an abortion if they so chose. But the problem described 
and the rhetoric used to describe the situation is totally at odds with 
the facts of the situation.
  The picture that has been painted is a false picture. We are left 
with the perception, as presented by supporters of the Murray 
amendment, that we are placing women who serve in our military in 
extraordinarily dangerous situations; that the policy currently in 
effect is forcing them into foreign back alleys, that their health and 
perhaps even their life is in jeopardy if we do not immediately repeal 
a policy which has been in place for a very substantial period of time 
and has caused no problems.

  There have been no complaints registered by women in the military. 
There have been no incidents of problems relative to women being unable 
to have an abortion. There has been no denial of constitutional rights. 
Yet we keep hearing about these terrible health risks that are being 
forced on women who serve in our military overseas. Terms were used: 
The cruel, indecent, inhumane policies; women have been victimized; it 
is extreme policy. I just wrote down some of the things that were 
said. ``Placing huge obstacles in front of women.''

  That just simply is not the case, Mr. President. Those are not the 
facts. If those were the facts of the situation, there might be a basis 
for at least debating, in seriousness, the Murray amendment.
  I would like to quote from a response to a letter that I sent to the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense to try to ascertain the facts of the 
case. I asked him several questions. I said:

       Has the Department of Defense had any difficulty in 
     implementing the current policy?

  That is the policy in effect that basically said military facilities 
will not be used to perform abortions on the basis of an elective 
abortion, not an abortion in terms of a need for abortion, but an 
abortion which is simply elective, a woman wanting an abortion.

       Has the Department had any difficulty in implementing the 
     current policy?

  Answer: No.

       Have any formal complaints been filed concerning this 
     policy, to the best of your knowledge and information?

  The answer: No; no formal complaints have been filed.

       Have any legal challenges been instituted concerning this 
     policy?

  The answer: No.

       Have any members or their dependents been denied access to 
     an abortion as a result of this policy?

  I think that is a very important point here. I am not sure our 
colleagues are listening. But the question I posed to the Secretary of 
Defense is, have any members or their dependents been denied access to 
an abortion as a result of the policy that the Senator from Washington 
is seeking to overturn? And the answer was no.
  I do not understand what the problem is. There has not been a denial 
of constitutional rights for women. There has not been a denial of 
access to abortion for women. The policy has been to enforce a policy 
that was adopted not just by Republicans but also by Democrats, I will 
state to my friend from New Jersey, that taxpayers' funds in the 
performance of abortions should not be used. That is a policy that has 
been upheld by the Supreme Court, which said simply because someone has 
a constitutional right to something does not mean the taxpayer has to 
fund that right.
  That case is Harris versus McCray, which basically upheld the Hyde 
language.
  What we are seeking to do here is uphold the Hyde language which has 
been adopted on numerous occasions by Republicans and Democrats, in 
both the House and in the Senate, as it applies to use of military 
facilities which are constructed, operated, paid for, doctors are paid 
for, equipment is purchased, all with taxpayer money.
  Now, if it was a valid argument that we were forcing women into 
foreign back alleys, I think that is a legitimate question for us to 
address, because these women are serving in the interest of their 
country and they are being deployed to places that would not 
necessarily be a place of their choosing.
  But that is not the case, because the Department of Defense will 
provide transportation back to whatever place that woman wants to go 
to, and I do not know of anybody who has to wait weeks for that 
transportation, because I asked that question also of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense:

       Have any members or their dependents been denied access to 
     military transport for the purpose of procuring an abortion?

  The answer is no, none. Nobody has filed a complaint saying they have 
been denied access. Nobody has raised a question saying they have had 
to wait weeks. No one has said, ``I have been forced into a back 
alley.'' They have had the opportunity to seek legal, safe abortions 
without risk to their health.
  If there is a risk to their health in such a way that it endangers 
their life or potentially endangers their life, or the abortion is as a 
result of a rape or incest, then that woman can obtain an abortion from 
a military facility. We do not want to deny them that opportunity in 
that situation. That is an abortion that is needed.
  But an abortion that is just simply wanted, for whatever reason, we 
are simply saying we do not believe the taxpayers should have to fund 
an abortion simply because a woman wants an abortion. Now, if that 
woman wants an

[[Page S6468]]

abortion and she has the right to get that abortion under the law, we 
are not denying her that right.
  It is just difficult for me to understand the rhetoric that is used 
by people who say we are taking away the constitutional rights of 
women.
  (Mr. GORTON assumed the chair.)
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. COATS. I will be happy to yield for questions from the Senator 
from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, I thank you for yielding.
  The issue here is equal treatment under the law, basically. You have 
a man who has to have a procedure performed that is a legal procedure. 
No one tells him he has to get on a plane. No one asks him all the 
details. No one puts him on a plane, takes him out of his duty station, 
flies him back. I tell you, if you did that to any one of these 
Senators here who might have been in the military, you would antagonize 
every man on this Senate floor.
  You are not treating a woman who wants to get a medical procedure in 
the same fashion. You may not like it, my colleague, and I respect your 
view and others on the Senate floor who I see here who want to take 
away a woman's right to choose, who want to take women back to the old 
days, but the point is: How do you justify treating a woman who wants a 
legal medical procedure different than a man who wants a legal medical 
procedure?
  I see my friend from Pennsylvania smiling about this. He may find it 
very amusing, but I might just say to my friend----
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from California what her 
question is.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I ask my friend, how does he justify treating a 
woman who wants to get a legal procedure in a different fashion from a 
man who wants to get a legal medical procedure?
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, in answer to the question of the Senator 
from California, I state to the Senator from California that there is a 
whole list of elective procedures that is not covered in military 
hospitals, not covered by military medicine, depending on the size of 
the facility, depending on the location of the facility, and, frankly, 
there are a series of things that are not covered, so men are denied 
elective procedures in a number of instances.

  So it is not a question here of equal treatment under the law, that 
this is the only medical procedure not allowed to people who serve in 
the military. We are simply saying, and I think the Senator has not 
addressed the point, we are simply saying that in the question of the 
utilization--Mr. President, is the Senator interested in my answer?
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, very seriously, if you look a woman 
in the eye who decides to exercise her legal right to choose, that she 
has a certain frame of time in which to make that painful, difficult, 
personal decision with her God, with her doctor, with her family, you 
do not put her on a plane. That is not an elective procedure.
  My friend can view it a different way, but I seriously question the 
fact that this is an elective procedure when a woman finds herself in 
this circumstance.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the Senator from California and I, 
obviously, have a difference of opinion on this. Let me see if I can 
refocus the debate.
  The question here is not over a woman's right to choose. The question 
is not over whether a woman has the right to an abortion. While the 
Senator from California and I disagree on the current legal status of 
that question, the Supreme Court has granted a woman the right to an 
abortion. That is not the issue that we are debating. That is not what 
this amendment is about.
  This amendment is focused on a fairly narrow question, and that is 
whether or not taxpayers' dollars ought to be used to provide abortion 
for women who serve in the military. There would be a problem here in 
denying a woman's access to abortion and perhaps impeding her 
constitutional rights if there were not alternatives available to that 
particular woman.
  But there are alternatives available. And the Department of Defense 
has made sure those alternatives are available. There is no recorded 
case in the Department of Defense where there was ever a complaint 
raised. That is why I said this seems to be a solution in search of a 
problem. If we had a documented series of a list of problems--
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield for a 
question? It is only to ask about time.
  Mr. COATS. I do not wish to use a whole lot of time. But I was asked 
a fairly provocative question, and I thought I would give the answer.
  Mrs. MURRAY. We want to give our Members a time agreement. How much 
more time does the Senator need?
  Mr. COATS. I am hoping to wrap up very shortly.
  But I hope when Members come over here we can separate fact from 
fiction. I hope Members will look at the facts of the case and make a 
decision on that basis, rather than look at the fiction that has been 
provided to us today by proponents of the amendment, because this is 
not a question of a woman's right to choose. That is a separate 
question. We can debate that. We are not debating that today, at least 
I did not think we were debating that today.
  The issue here is simply whether or not a woman in the military 
should use a military facility for an elective abortion, paid for by 
her funds for the cost of the procedure, but impossible to separate 
from the use of taxpayer funds in constructing, operating, hiring 
doctors, purchasing equipment, and the other associated costs with 
taxpayer funds provided in military hospitals.
  The military has no recorded evidence of anybody being denied access, 
denied transportation, denied the opportunity to get the abortion that 
they seek. We can deal with the other issue at another time. But to 
characterize this policy as cruel, indecent, inhumane, the denial of 
women's rights, dangerous, back-alley foreign abortions simply, I 
think, does not characterize and should not characterize this debate 
because that is not what this issue is about.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COATS. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. What happens if the woman wants to have the procedure 
done--the Senator has agreed that under present law she can request 
that--in a country that has a prohibition within their population? That 
eliminates medical service there.
  The Senator further says that you cannot use the military medical 
facility because of the fungibility of funds. Would the Senator be 
willing to say to the military, that you must guarantee that a flight 
be made available within a 3-day period, a 5-day period, to a U.S. 
military medical facility that will accommodate her need and to make 
sure that that trip can be arranged within a 5-day period?
  Would the Senator be willing to guarantee, since the Senator says he 
has no interest in stopping the procedure--his concern is about the 
fungibility of the funds--that we would guarantee that this individual 
would have access to an abortion, respecting the rights, by the way, of 
any conscientious objection by a physician who might not want to do it 
or medical personnel?
  Mr. COATS. If that was a problem, it is something that we might want 
to consider. But according to the Department of Defense, it is not a 
problem, never been a problem. Again, it is a solution, a mandate, that 
is not necessary because there has never been a problem with that.

  If a woman in the military is in a country that does not provide 
abortions by law, obviously that woman is free to travel to another 
country or back to the United States. In the case of--I am not even 
sure of what Italy allows, but if you are stationed in Italy, you 
usually travel to Germany to get an abortion or a neighboring country. 
It is just not a problem. I do not think we need to legislate something 
that is not a problem.
  Mr. President, I am prepared to yield to anyone else that seeks time. 
But I think we are just replowing old ground here. If the Senator from 
Washington wants to wrap up, we can notify our colleagues that within a 
very short time we expect a vote. I am going to move to table as soon 
as the Senator from Washington is finished.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Indiana is willing to 
yield back time, I will use 30 seconds.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am more than willing to do that. I will 
yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has yielded back his

[[Page S6469]]

time. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Once again, I urge my colleagues to vote for this very simple 
amendment. It will allow our women who serve in our military overseas 
to use their own private funds to get a safe, legal abortion in our 
military facilities overseas.
  We have talked a lot about the women in our military, but this also 
affects the wives and the daughters of our servicemen who serve 
overseas. They, too, should have the ability to have a safe, legal 
procedure.
  I have heard that no complaints have been filed. But I tell my 
colleagues that this puts a woman in a very serious position, if she 
does complain, and she is in the military. It could have career 
implications. And it could have personal implications. It does not 
surprise me that the Senator from Indiana has not heard of any 
complaints. But I assure you, this does put women's lives in jeopardy. 
It puts obstacles in front of them that clearly violate their equal 
protection under the law. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment, and I yield back my additional time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment by the Senator from Washington. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. 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] 
and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and 
the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frahm
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bumpers
     D'Amato
     Grams
     Kerrey
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4059) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4059) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4060

   (Purpose: To reduce the amount authorized to be appropriated for 
     military construction in order to eliminate authorizations of 
appropriations for certain military construction projects not included 
 in the Administration request for such projects for fiscal year 1997)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Glenn, proposes an amendment numbered 4060.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 title XXVII, add the following:

     SEC. 2706. REDUCTION IN AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                   CERTAIN MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS NOT 
                   REQUESTED BY THE ADMINISTRATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, the 
     total amount authorized to be appropriated by this division 
     is hereby decreased by $598,764,000.

  Mr. McCAIN. First of all, I would like to say that I am perfectly 
agreeable to a time agreement to be entered into immediately. I hope 
that the other side understands. There is an objection on the other 
side. But I do not believe this amendment should take too long. I would 
be glad to enter into a time agreement at any time during this 
discussion.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield without losing his right to the 
floor?
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to so yield to the Senator from 
Vermont without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not have a particular position on this 
one. I would be delighted with whatever time agreement we might enter 
into. But I see the deputy Republican leader on the floor. I am just 
wondering with time agreements and all if we might have some idea. What 
is the schedule tonight? For those of us who have faint glimmers of 
family-friendly situations, I just wonder. I am perfectly willing to 
continue to vote for the rest of the evening, or stack votes. I am not 
the one to make that choice. I wonder if someone could give us an idea.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from 
Oklahoma for purposes of answering.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, there has been no formal agreement. I 
will tell my colleagues that we are trying to complete this bill. We 
have a lot of amendments. I understand the request of the Senator from 
Vermont. I think it is the intention of the majority leader to press on 
tonight, probably until--this time has not been announced but I will 
guess until about 9 o'clock and then probably continue later to stack 
votes for a later time. It is vitally important that we move forward.
  I will consult with the majority leader and will report back very 
soon.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend from Arizona for making it possible to 
make that inquiry of the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the 
Senator from Illinois for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may suggest to the new leadership over 
there, as one who is not going to be around here too long, I think we 
ought to accommodate families as much as possible. So in the evenings 
when you can stack the votes I think it is desirable to do so. I just 
pass that along and suggest it to the new whip. I congratulate him 
publicly on that. I see that Senator Craig is here. I think to the 
extent that you can accommodate family life here it improves the United 
States Senate.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague 
from Illinois. I might mention the Senator from Arizona asked for a 
time limit on his amendment. If Senators

[[Page S6470]]

and opponents of amendments are willing to enter into time agreements, 
it makes it a lot easier to stack votes. So for us to be cooperative, I 
share the concerns to be more family friendly, and if it is possible 
for us to stack votes for this evening so there might be time for 
people to have dinner with their families, or something, but to do that 
it is really essential to have time agreements and have a couple of 
other amendments in order. So if we have maybe some more help 
in reaching those time agreements and ordering the next amendment, that 
would certainly be of help.

  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if I might additionally comment, we are 
reaching the point in the process we go through where it is about time 
we got hold of all of the amendments and start trying to negotiate time 
agreements on them. Obviously, the gestation period is a couple of 
days. We need to move forward with that part of this process of getting 
this bill through the body.
  Mr. President, I would like to say again to my friends on the other 
side of the aisle that I would be glad to enter into a time agreement 
on this amendment at any time during the discussion of this amendment. 
As far as I know, the Senator from Ohio is the only other speaker I 
have on this amendment; at least who is in favor of it. We would be 
glad to enter into a reasonable time agreement at any time.
  Mr. President, I would like to describe the amendment and make a few 
comments on it.
  The amendment would cut nearly $600 million which was included in the 
bill for unrequested military construction and family housing projects. 
I am somewhat gratified to learn that the close scrutiny focused on 
military construction pork has at least forced a degree of control on 
the process. Most of the projects in this additional add-on of $600 
million meets four of our five criteria stated in the sense-of-the-
Senate language.
  These criteria are that the mission is essential for, in 11 
instances, quality of life not inconsistent with the BRAC process in 
the future years defense plans except when only designed money is 
authorized and executed in fiscal year 1997. Twenty-five of the added 
projects do not meet some other criteria. However, 10 of these are 
quality of life improvements, and the balance received only planning 
and design funding. But, Mr. President, none of the projects that were 
added in this bill meet the fifth criteria; that is, there is an offset 
by a reduction in some other defense account.
  These are simply $600 million add-ons. I appreciate the fact that 
every effort was made to adhere to some credible criteria in selecting 
the projects for these add-ons. But my objection in principle to adding 
funds for unrequested military construction projects remains the same. 
During the markup of this legislation in the Armed Services Committee 
the Readiness Subcommittee recommended a plus of $100 million for high 
priority housing projects that the Secretary of Defense had come over 
and sought additional funding for. But the subcommittee allowed the 
Department of Defense to determine the allocation of these projects by 
military priority, not by location in any particular Senator's State.
  Senator Glenn and I both voted against the addition of this $600 
million in unrequested military construction when the amendment was 
offered in our markup. Not surprisingly we lost that vote.
  Mr. President, this is a very disturbing, unpleasant, and in some 
ways alarming situation that has been going on for some time. Since 
1990, the Congress has added more than $6 billion to the military 
construction accounts. I want to repeat--$6 billion to military 
construction accounts. This bill adds another $600 million for 
unrequested projects. At the same time the overall defense budget has 
declined by more than 40 percent despite our recent efforts to increase 
funding.

  Mr. President, let me explain that again. While we have increased 
over the request of the Defense Department some $6 billion in 
unrequested military construction projects--some of them the most 
outrageous, including, for example, a foundry at a base that is being 
closed; construction of a health care facility at a base where down the 
street is another health care facility where they could have put 
lifetime memberships for every member of that military base; to the 
addition of a runway at a base where not far away is a very large, one 
of the largest airfields in the world. The list goes on and on. We have 
added $6 billion to the military construction accounts while the 
defense budget overall has decreased by some 40 percent.
  Mr. President, we cannot do that for a whole variety of reasons, 
including maintaining credibility with the American people as to the 
need for their tax dollars which are earmarked for defense, to be spent 
on defense.
  Let us look at the priority of these added projects in the overall 
budget of the military construction. Of the total of 115 added projects 
72 of them were planned for the year 2000, or later. In fact, 14 of 
these projects were not anywhere in the future year defense plan; 
nowhere. Nowhere could 14 of these projects be found. Of the $600 
million added for the unrequested projects, almost $350 million for 
these 72 projects was planned for the next century--were planned for 
the next century, not this century. Surely projects planned for the 
year 2000, 2001, 2002, or later are not as vital to the services as 
those that are planned to be included in next year's defense budget. 
Why did we not focus on fiscal year 1998 projects, if we are going to 
add these military construction projects? I will tell you, Mr. 
President, the answer is simple. Because some of these 1998 projects 
were not in the State or district of powerful members. It is that 
simple. There can be no other reason. Instead, we are reaching 4 years 
out in the future years' defense plan, into the next century, to find 
29 projects that are planned in the States of members of the Armed 
Services Committee.

  Let me repeat. I will be very frank. We are reaching 4 years ahead in 
the future years' defense plan, into the next century, to fund 29 
projects that are planned in States of members of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Let us be realistic. This bill is $1.7 billion above the defense 
budget target set in the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution. That means 
we will have to cut out some of the programs added in this bill when we 
get to conference with the House.
  Will military construction be part of those cuts when we reach our 
negotiations with the other body? I do not think so. Instead, we will 
probably end up cutting some of the high-priority adds for much needed 
modernization equipment that will enable our troops to fight and win in 
future conflicts.
  With the authorizers and appropriators adding $900 million to the 
military construction request, I predict the outcome of our conference 
will be an agreement to fund most of what is in either bill, or more 
than $1 billion in unrequested projects. After all, that is the only 
way to keep everybody happy.
  Mr. President, I am tired of seeing us acquiesce to a practice which 
only feeds on itself. Until we instill some discipline in our own 
markup process by resisting the temptation to add money simply because 
it serves our constituents, we cannot expect the Department of Defense 
to exercise discipline in resisting efforts to spend defense dollars on 
unnecessary nondefense projects.
  Mr. President, we have made progress in reducing the total amount of 
pork-barreling in the defense budget. Last year, about $4 billion of 
the total $7 billion that was added to the defense budget was wasted on 
pork-barrel projects like new attack submarines, research project 
earmarks, medical education programs, and, of course, military 
construction add-ons. This year, we are only wasting $2 billion. But $2 
billion is a lot of taxpayers' dollars to waste.
  How do we explain to the American people why we need to spend $11 
billion more for defense this year when we are spending $2 billion for 
projects that do little or nothing to contribute to our Nation's 
security?
  For the sake of ensuring public support for adequate defense spending 
now and in the future, let us stop this practice now. I urge my 
colleagues to vote to cut out the $600 million in unnecessary military 
construction spending.
  Thanks to organizations such as the Citizens Against Government 
Waste,

[[Page S6471]]

Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Taxpayers Union, and talk 
show hosts all over America, the American people are becoming 
increasingly aware of what kind of a process we are in. We might have 
had some rationale back in the 1980's when we continually increased the 
defense budget, when money for defense was quite readily available, but 
what we have experienced in the last 7 or 8 years is a dramatic cut in 
defense spending, and yet the spending on unnecessary and unwanted 
projects goes up. At some point, this is going to have to stop. I hope 
it is now. It probably will not be.
  There are enough projects in here that there will be more than enough 
votes to defeat this amendment. But it is not fair. It is not 
appropriate.
  Let me point out that we still have problems with our equipment. We 
do not have sufficient airlift and sealift and amphibious capability. 
According to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we are 
underfunded as far as force modernization is concerned by some $21 
billion this year, and yet we are going to spend billions of dollars on 
these unwanted projects.
  I do not expect to win on this amendment, but I want to inform my 
colleagues that I will not quit on this issue. I have an obligation to 
the men and women in the military and the taxpayers of America to 
continue to ventilate this issue.
  I am also pleased that we passed the line-item veto this year, which 
will go into next year, and next year, in partnership with my colleague 
from Ohio, we are going to at least send a list over to the President 
of the United States for his consideration so we can cut out this 
practice which clearly the Congress of the United States does not have 
the courage to do.
  With that, Mr. President, at this point I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Senator McCain and I usually are on the 
same side, but in this particular case we are on opposite sides.
  I rise to oppose Senator McCain's amendment to strike the funding for 
$598 million for military construction projects added to the defense 
authorization bill during the Armed Services Committee markup. Senator 
McCain has been persistent trying to eliminate defense spending that he 
believes is unnecessary and I applaud him for his persistence.
   Mr. President, we have screened the projects that Senator McCain is 
attempting to strike with the Department of Defense. They all meet the 
criteria that both Senator McCain and Senator Glenn worked so 
diligently to set up. For the benefit of all Members that criteria are 
as follows: Is the project in the future year defense plan? Can 
construction on the project begin in fiscal year 1997? Is the project 
mission essential or a quality of life issue? And, is the project 
consistent with base closure action?
  The committee received requests from 62 members for construction 
projects totaling more than $1.6 billion. Of the projects requested, 
$730 million met the committee's criteria. However, because of the 
funding priorities, the committee agreed to fund only the highest 
priorities and those that would contribute to readiness and to the 
quality of life of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
   Mr. President, I want to point out that more than $200 million of 
the $700 million is dedicated to quality of life improvement projects 
such as barracks and family housing. Another $170 million is dedicated 
to training and readiness facilities. These are projects that the 
administration could not fund because it chose to reduce the military 
construction budget by almost $1.5 billion below the amount requested 
in fiscal year 1996.
  Finally, I want to address the comment in the statement of 
administration policy regarding this bill. The administration states 
that projects for $95 million are not in the services long-range plans. 
It included such facilities as the troop barracks in Germany and the 
family housing construction in England. These projects that amount to 
more than $25 million were among the highest priorities on the list of 
unfunded projects submitted by services. The remaining projects were 
equally justified.
   Mr. President, the $700 million added by the committee are justified 
and are in the best interest of our national security. I urge the 
Senate to support the committee and vote against the McCain amendment.
   Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, there is not a single Senator here who 
does not go back home and talk all the time about how we want a 
balanced budget. We want a balanced budget very badly. We have the 
President's plan we put forward in 1993, we have the Democratic plan, 
Republican plan, and we all take great pride in how we want to balance 
the budget. Yet, when it comes down to actually doing something 
practical, if it impinges just a little bit in our area, or if we are 
not able to bring home some of the pork we would like to bring home, 
pump up the way people look at us back home, then our talk about budget 
balancing gets pretty thin around here. That is what we are talking 
about and that is what Senator McCain has been addressing.
  This amendment would cut nearly $600 million which was included in 
the bill for unrequested military construction. These are things the 
Pentagon did not say they needed. These were things the administration 
did not say we needed. We did not have to have this money in there. 
These are add-ons, strictly add-ons.
  Granted, many of these are going to family housing projects and 
things like that. But these were not the priorities that the 
administration established or the Defense Department established or the 
Army, Navy and Marine Corps established as what they would rather have 
if the $600 million was available to be spent for whatever. These are 
things that Members of Congress just decided in their own wisdom to put 
in. As the Senator from Arizona has indicated, too many times it 
appears that these efforts to put good things in just happen to be in 
the home district or just happen to be in the home State. They just 
happen to be add-ons that all total up to $600 million. So when we talk 
about balancing the budget down here, are we going to walk the walk as 
well as talk the talk? That is basically what we are talking about.
  Some years ago here, I think it was 3 or maybe 4 years ago, this idea 
of the pork creeping into every defense authorization bill had become 
so rampant, had become so out of control, that the Senator from Arizona 
and I started a policy. We got this through as sort of sense-of-the-
Senate language that any add-ons would have to meet some criteria. We 
would use these as a benchmark. That does not mean they should go in if 
they met these five criteria; it just means we had to make a compromise 
and stop some of the runaway pork that was put into this legislation 
every year.
  So what did we do? We put in several criteria. It had to be mission-
essential for the long term, the future; No. 2, it could not be 
inconsistent with BRAC, the base closure procedure; it had to be in the 
5-year defense plan; it had to be executed in the next fiscal year or 
at least start the contract then; and, No. 5, it had to be offset by a 
reduction in some other defense account if you are going to make an 
add-on.
  That does not mean if it met these five criteria automatically you 
should try to put it in and goody-grab in the budget or authorization 
bill if it meets those five criteria. We set these criteria because 
that stopped some of the even more rampant requests, things that were 
put in the budget back then that were even worse than the things we see 
right now.
  What happened when we take this sense-of-the-Senate criteria and 
apply it this year? Madam President, 25 added projects do not meet some 
of the criteria. It does not mean they do not meet some of them; they 
do. Are any of them offset by our defense accounts? No, they are not. 
They do not meet that criteria at all. But the basic objection is just 
in principle, adding funds for unrequested military construction 
projects. Our objection to it remains the same.

  During the Senate Armed Services Committee markup, as an example, our 
subcommittee, which Chairman McCain chairs and which I am the ranking 
minority on, we recommended some additions in the subcommittee to be 
passed by the full committee. They were substantial increases in areas 
we

[[Page S6472]]

had discussed with the Pentagon. They thought they could use some more 
money in these areas so we recommended in the subcommittee some 
additions of about $100 million, additions for high priority housing 
projects--we agreed on that. But the subcommittee allowed the 
Department of Defense to determine the allocation of those projects. We 
did not look around the room and say, ``What Senator is here we can 
please? What Senator can we help get reelected? What Senator can we do 
a favor for?''
  No, we put that money in because the Defense Department indicated 
they could use it, and they could make the choice, they could make the 
choice on where the greatest need was. That was our basic criteria in 
markup this year, and I think it was a very sound one. Let DOD decide 
where their greatest need is, not try to come back and do a favor for 
one or more of our Members.
  Senator McCain and I both voted against additions of the $600 million 
in unrequested MilCon when it was offered in our markup. But we lost 
that vote, obviously. What is the cumulative effect of all this? Since 
1990, it has added up to real money, as some would say here. This is 
not just peanuts anymore. Since 1990, we have added more than $6 
billion--$6 billion--to MilCon accounts. Now we are going to add 
another $600 million in unrequested projects with what we are doing 
here.
  Our overall defense budget has gone down meanwhile, so, when we make 
add-ons like this, they assume a more important role than they would 
have even normally, because they become a greater percentage of what 
our total military expenditures are. The defense budget has gone down 
about 40 percent, yet we are going ahead with these things that benefit 
primarily our Members.
  The priority of these added projects? Do we need them now? It is my 
understanding that, of the 115 added projects, 72 were planned for the 
year 2000 or later. That does not make them very necessary right now. 
In the unrequested projects, almost $350 million out of the $600 
million was added for these projects that are planned for after the 
turn of the century. No wonder the Defense Department did not request 
things like this. No wonder there were higher priorities in the defense 
budget.
  So, why do we put these in? Although we objected, they are put in 
mainly because particular Members want to do something in their States. 
They want to bring home the bacon. We must be realistic. This bill is 
$1.7 billion above the defense budget target set in the fiscal 1997 
budget resolution now. That means we have to cut out some of the 
programs added, and when we get to conference with the House, how are 
we going to do that? What is going to be cut? Will these be out of the 
procurement accounts? Is that what we are going to do? Will MilCon be 
cut when Members just succeeded in getting something in for 
their States or their home districts?

  MilCon is probably going to be the last thing that gets cut. So we 
will wind up, instead of spending some of this $600 million for much-
needed modernization equipment that we will really need if we get into 
any future conflict, we are going to spend it for these other things 
that were add-ons that people wanted for their particular area.
  As I understand it, the House has already passed their bill. They 
added, in their bill, some $900 million to the MilCon request, almost 
$1 billion. You know what is going to come out of the conference. What 
usually comes out of the conference--not cutting back on those MilCon 
projects, because that would offend some members of the committee who 
were just successful in getting these projects in for their home State.
  So we are looking forward to a conference committee which usually 
will not cut these accounts. So if we are going to cut them, it is 
going to have to be here, and it will have to be done with the proposal 
of the Senator from Arizona, his proposal that I support very, very 
strongly. It is not easy to be out on point, trying to do something 
like this. I will say that. He and I have both received a lot of flak 
over the past 3 or 4 years as we have tried to cut back some of these 
things. We have had Members come back to us and criticize us, criticize 
us for being unfair and all sorts of things. I do not have any problem 
at all standing for some of these cuts. We have been proud to make this 
effort.
  I will say this: I think we have been somewhat successful with this 
in reducing the total amount, the total amount through the years that 
people have requested. I will not say we have scared people off, but 
let us say we have made some of them think twice, anyway, about some of 
these things. So the requests have been going down, and we can probably 
point to where, compared with last year, we probably have gone from 
about $4 billion you can point to as questionable down to only about $2 
billion this year. Is that good? No, it is not very good. But it is 
better than we thought we might do last year, I will say that. So maybe 
we are having an impact. Maybe we are heading, really, in the right 
direction.
  But what it comes down to is, are we going to talk about budgets and 
talk and talk about budgets and act as though we are doing something 
around here all the time and worry about little tiny amounts, 
comparatively speaking, in the budget? Or are we going to really do 
something about it?
  Here is what we do when it comes to trying to get something for our 
own States, or Members of the House of Representatives trying to get 
something for their districts so they can point with great pride, make 
a headline when they are up for reelection: I brought back the park on 
this. I got that road intersection, or I got something in there that is 
part of this $600 million.
  Are we doing this for campaign purposes or are we doing it because 
the Pentagon really needs this as a priority item to really fulfill our 
defense needs?
  Most of these things, by that criteria, do not even deserve to be 
talked about as far as being necessary. Most of them are add-ons that 
are favors to particular Members, and we know it, and anybody who works 
on this legislation knows it also.
  So I say, let us just keep after this. I know Senator McCain is 
committed to keeping after it. I am, too. I believe he wants to call 
for a rollcall vote on this, and I certainly support that.
  For all the reasons I have stated above, I support this. I urge our 
colleagues to put the budget ahead of their own parochial interests, 
perhaps. He and I have not added things in for our own State on this. I 
have not added a thing. There are things in here for Ohio, but not that 
I asked for. I think he is in the same status, as far as Arizona goes.
  So we are walking the walk on this ourselves. We are not just talking 
about this and talking against someone else and goody grabbing 
ourselves. This is something we feel strongly about. We feel this $600 
million was not requested, and we think when you look at it that we can 
do without these things and, hopefully, get the Pentagon to prioritize 
what they want and support their budget, not what we can add on over 
here.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I certainly would never question the good 
intentions of my friend from Ohio or the Senator from the State of 
Arizona, but I think it is important to know that the chairman of this 
subcommittee, the junior Senator from the State of Montana, is not 
known for being a big spender. He came to the U.S. Senate with 
experience in the State of Montana working at the county level. There 
he was known for his frugality. He has acted the same way as chairman 
of this subcommittee.
  Everyone should recognize that the amount that we are going to have 
marked up in our bill tomorrow is $200 million less than what the House 
has, and I do not think the House is known for spending lots of money. 
Our subcommittee is coming with less money than has been requested and 
authorized and appropriated by the House.
  All of our colleagues should understand that the money that is the 
so-called add-ons meet the so-called McCain criteria. The distinguished 
Senator from Arizona said that if there are going to be add-ons, they 
should meet certain criteria. If there is going to be money 
appropriated, they should meet certain criteria.

[[Page S6473]]

  We have met every one of the criteria in every one of the matters 
being questioned.
  What are those criteria? That there be a 5-year plan. Everything in 
our bill meets that plan. Every element in these so-called add-ons are 
within the 5-year plan.
  Second is that they be the top priority of the base commander. We 
have met that criteria.
  That the add-ons be mission essential. We met that criteria.
  That the site has been selected for the construction. That criteria 
has been met.
  Finally, it can be executed in this fiscal year. That criteria has 
been met.
  We have met the McCain criteria, not in some instances but in every 
instance.
  The examples cited by the distinguished Senator from Arizona, about 
the health club and all that, I respectfully say I do not know what he 
is talking about, but they would not meet the 5-year plan or the 
criteria generally. Everything we are talking about meets the McCain 
criteria.
  We should also recognize that the bill we are talking about this year 
is 10 percent below last year's level; $1.3 billion below last year's 
level. We are, of course, going to be within our 602(b) allocation.
  If you look at what has happened, the moneys that we have been given 
by the administration suggested the grand sum for the Army National 
Guard of $7 million for military construction all over the country. The 
Army National Guard would go out of business.
  I stand in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Arizona and the Senator from Ohio. I suggest that the Senator from 
Nevada and the Senator from Montana are proud of what we are doing for 
the military. We are proud of what we are doing for the Guard and 
Reserve.
  The amendment would not allow for authorization of construction 
projects that are of immediate need to those who continue to serve us 
so well. I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment for these 
and other reasons.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee used stringent criteria to ensure 
that all projects authorized were determined to have met these 
criteria. These criteria are known, as I indicated, to the members of 
the committee as the McCain criteria.
  We, as members of the Military Construction Appropriations 
Subcommittee, chaired by the Senator from Montana, funded all the 
projects that had previously met these criteria and were recommended by 
the authorizing committee, of which the Chair serves as a member of 
that committee. The projects that have been authorized are necessary to 
maintain the stability of our National Guard and Reserve and to 
continue to enhance the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, and 
our airmen and women.
  Of the $600 million talked about in construction projects that this 
amendment would eliminate, $368 million, about 60 percent of this 
amount, is designated for construction of National Guard and Reserve 
projects. Remember, the administration requested the sum of $7 million 
for the Army National Guard and military construction.
  In addition to the $368 million, about 60 percent, as I have 
indicated, for National Guard and Reserve, we have requested an 
additional $189 million which is directly designated to build military 
family housing. Why? To improve the quality of life of our service 
members.
  Nearly all of this $600 million reduction directly attacks the 
projects that the administration always neglects. They do not put 
anything in there, knowing that we have an obligation to the Guard and 
Reserve.
  We have a National Guard and Reserve Caucus in this Senate. We have 
62 Members. Why? Because administrations in years gone by have 
neglected the Guard and Reserve. We need to become more dependent on 
the Guard and Reserve rather than less dependent, as a result of the 
builddown of our military forces.
  It is our specific task to look independently at all the military 
construction needs of this country. Should we be a rubberstamp of the 
administration and say we are not going to ask for anything other than 
what they request for the Guard and Reserve and from the States of 
Ohio, Arizona, Montana, Texas, Nevada, California, Virginia? The answer 
is no, we have to look beyond what the administration suggests and 
recommends.
  It is our specific task to do just that: to look independently at all 
the military construction needs of this country, not just what the 
President sends us.
  We are not appropriating moneys for programs that have not been 
authorized. We are not appropriating moneys for programs that have not 
met the criteria of the McCain criteria. The list that we receive 
annually from the administration continues to overlook projects we are 
known to support and compelled to include in our bill in order to 
maintain the strength of our fighting force. The administration does 
not have the exclusive wisdom to determine the finality of this list. A 
rubber stamp by our committee would take away the legitimacy of its 
obligation, its oversight responsibility and obligation.

  Without the $600 million included in this bill, the Guard and Reserve 
will again be shortchanged. All over this country quality of life for 
our service members will be greatly deterred and the committee's need 
would be repudiated. We could just eliminate the subcommittee. We could 
just eliminate the armed services work that they have done.
  I encourage my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment. I 
repeat, the chairman of this subcommittee has worked very hard, along 
with the members of the subcommittee, to come up with something that is 
fair. There is talk about if these add-ons were added on--people used 
the term ``pork.'' Maybe, Madam President, what we need to do is talk 
about some of these so-called pork projects, projects that allow our 
Guard and Reserve to survive and allow the quality of life for our 
armed service members to be enhanced. If that is pork, then we have 
$600 million of pork, because the $600 million will allow our Guard and 
Reserve to survive and will enhance and improve the quality of life of 
the men and women who serve us in the military.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I 
guess whenever we start talking about appropriating and budgeting for 
certain needs of our military, we always hear the argument that there 
are things unrequested by the Pentagon or unrequested by the President. 
I am wondering if we as individuals in this body and the House do not 
have the same responsibility of taking a look and making up our own 
minds on the needs of our men and women in uniform.
  In this bill that has been authorized, the greatest share goes to 
quality of life. Quality of life leads to retention, the retention of 
the good people who are now serving in our respective services.
  The Senator from Nevada and I have worked--and I do not know of 
anybody who is easier or better to work with when we start going down 
through the priority list on military construction than Senator Reid 
from Nevada. He understands what has to be done, understands that, no, 
the administration never sends any request down for projects or any 
support for the National Guard or sometimes even our Reserve units. In 
fact, if we would look at the backlog of construction for our Reserve 
units, it is in the billions of dollars, because it has been put away.
  I want to remind my colleagues that this bill, this authorizing bill, 
and the appropriations that we are going to mark up tomorrow is cut 
$1.3 billion from a year ago. So if the Senator from Ohio and my friend 
from Arizona say they are having an effect, they are having an effect. 
We are spending less money than we did a year ago in military 
construction.
  But quality of life and readiness, because we have changed that since 
the cold war is over--in other words, money goes to the base closing 
and realignment, environmental cleanup of those bases; but for the 
retention of the people that we need, the biggest share of our thrust 
has been in the quality of life.
  I will tell you that I have been in some barracks that were not very 
good. I would not ask my employees to live

[[Page S6474]]

there. Those projects have to be done if we are going to retain the 
people in our military. And as to the morale, it adds to everything.
  But keep in mind that, yes, we are $1.3 billion under a year ago. 
Then you have to sit down, like Senator Reid and I did and our staffs, 
and set some priorities. But the Pentagon should not be the only one 
that has any kind of judgment on the needs of some of our military 
people, nor the administration. We have an obligation to our military 
people, too, just like anybody else.
  So I think this is a pretty frugal bill when it comes to military 
construction. There is not very much in here that is not needed and 
requested by the military. With that, I say to my colleagues that this 
amendment should be defeated, and I ask for its defeat. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, as co-chair for the National Guard Caucus 
I rise to object to this amendment.
  The Senate, in the past years, has voted to appropriate necessary 
military construction funds to offset the neglect of administrations in 
order to make sure that the defense infrastructure would be adequately 
funded.
  As we have discussed on the floor before, the National Guard has 
traditionally been the neglected stepchild of the executive branch and 
the Department of Defense. They neglect the Guard because they know we 
will take care of it. We must. Who do we look to for every disaster? 
Who receives the call in every domestic emergency? And who continues to 
serve and implement military and foreign policy the world over? The 
National Guard. The military construction bill funds these mission 
essential and housing projects which were designated as critical by 
each State's adjutant general. I ask Senators to support the men and 
women of the Guard and support the Guard's ability to carry out its 
missions and vote against this amendment.
  Active Forces infrastructure has traditionally been adequately funded 
with the Guard forces traditionally underfunded. Why has it been this 
way, many have asked. And the answer which is whispered through the 
Halls of this building is that the Congressmen and Senators will take 
care of it. And we have and we do and we will because we care about the 
welfare and readiness of the National Guard and Air National Guard.
  The administration this year funded the Army Guard to the tune of $7 
million; $7 million for the entire Army Guard infrastructure. For all 
50 States and Puerto Rico; $7 million for the entire Army Guard force. 
If the Senators here respect our citizen soldiers, then they must 
rectify this shoddy treatment of those who protect us. My colleagues on 
the committee have done just that and they have done it with strict 
adherence to a rigorous set of standards for these necessary quality of 
life and readiness projects.
  The committee considered each of the programs added to this year's 
military construction bill for its executability in fiscal year 1997, 
its being of the highest priority for the base commanders and National 
Guard tags, its inclusion in the FYDP, and its overall criticality to 
quality of life and readiness.
  To vote for this amendment is to turn your back on your National 
Guard personnel. Currently, this is the only venue we have to maintain 
infrastructure readiness and quality of life. We are trying to get the 
administration to acknowledge the Guard's requirements, but let us not 
hamstring our Guard for the administration's shortsightedness. Do not 
let this amendment pass.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I stand in strong opposition to the 
Amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain]. This 
amendment would not allow for the authorization of construction 
projects that are of immediate need to those who continue to serve us 
so well. I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment for these 
reasons.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee used stringent criteria to ensure 
that all projects authorized were determined to have met these 
criteria. These criteria are known to the members of the committee as 
the McCain Criteria. We, the members of the Military Construction 
Appropriations Subcommittee funded all of the projects that had 
previously met these criteria and were recommended by the Authorization 
Committee.
  The projects that have been authorized are necessary to maintain the 
stability of our National Guard and Reserve and to continue to enhance 
the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Of the $600 
million in construction projects that this amendment would eliminate, 
$368 million or over 60 percent of this amount is designated for the 
construction of National Guard and Reserve projects; and additional 
$189 million is directly designated to build military family housing, 
to improve the quality of life of our service members. Nearly all of 
this $600 million reduction directly attacks the projects that the 
administration annually neglects.
  It is our specific task to look independently at all the Military 
Construction needs of the country. The list that we receive annually 
from the administration continues to overlook projects that we are 
known to support, and compelled to include in our bill, in order to 
maintain the strength of our fighting force. The administration does 
not have exclusive wisdom to determine the finality of this list. A 
rubber stamp by our committees would take away the legitimacy of its 
oversight.
  Without the $600 million included in this bill, the Guard and Reserve 
will again be shortchanged, quality of life for our service members 
would be greatly deterred, and the committee's need would be 
repudiated. I encourage my colleagues to strongly oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I do not want to cut off debate. I will move to table when 
everyone has completed talking.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, subject to the concurrence of my 
distinguished colleague from Georgia, it is the intention of Chairman 
Thurmond to have this matter voted on, but allowing sufficient 
notification to Senators of the time that that vote would commence.
  I understand that the distinguished Senator from Georgia will address 
this issue for a period. If the distinguished Senator from Nevada 
wishes to move to table, of course, that is his prerogative. Then if it 
is agreeable to the Senator from Arizona, we would lay aside the 
amendment and delay the voting for a stipulated period of time and 
allow maybe other business to come in the intervening period. That 
would be the desire of this manager. I presume the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia concurs in that.
  Mr. NUNN. That is fine.
  Mr. WARNER. He has indicated his assent.
  Is the Senator from Arizona agreeable?
  Mr. McCAIN.  I say to my friend from Virginia, I am agreeable, but I 
think it should be made clear. Will we have further votes tonight? This 
issue will be voted on at some time tonight?
  Mr. WARNER. Oh, yes. Let us say, hypothetically, if the Senator from 
Georgia would use 10 minutes, we would have the vote commence at 8:15. 
In the interim period, the Senator from Georgia and I would endeavor to 
get more business done.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I request 3 additional 
minutes for comments before we close out.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from Virginia 
whether he anticipates other rollcall votes tonight beyond this one?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am advised by Chairman Thurmond that is 
the desire of the majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object----
  Mr. WARNER. I am not sure anything is pending, but that is the best I 
know at this time.
  Mr. NUNN. The only suggestion I would make, unless we can get an 
amendment up that is one that is going to be debated as a rollcall 
vote, I would suggest--I could take no more than 30 seconds for my 
comments, and we could perhaps move that timeframe up a bit. That gives 
us a better chance of either one of two things: If we are not going to 
have other rollcalls, it would allow Members to be able to go back to 
their families earlier; if there are, we can get started on that 
debate. I do not know what other amendments are

[[Page S6475]]

going to come up requiring rollcalls tonight.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, I am informed 
that the majority leader is agreeable to having this vote on the McCain 
amendment at the hour of 8 o'clock tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will take just about 1 minute. It is my 
understanding from all the information that I have been provided that 
every project here that is the subject of this amendment and the 
critique that has been laid down by our colleagues from Ohio and 
Arizona, each one of these projects is in the 5-year defense plan of 
the Department of Defense. Each project also can begin construction in 
fiscal year 1997. Each project is mission essential or quality-of-life 
related. And each project is consistent with BRAC actions.
  I would like to see if there are any of these projects that are on 
closed military bases or ones being closed. I am informed that none of 
them is. That has been carefully screened. If they are, I certainly 
would like to have someone show me which one is on a closing military 
base, because that is contrary to all the information that we have.
  A breakdown of the requested projects that have been added to the 
budget:
  There has been $206 million added for quality of life improvements--
barracks, family housing, fitness centers, child care centers, dining 
facilities, family support centers, education centers, et cetera: $169 
million for training and readiness-related projects; $81 million for 
maintenance shops and facilities; $51 million for general 
infrastructure improvement projects; $50 million for new mission-
related projects; and $41 million for health/safety/environment-related 
projects.
  Mr. President, it is true that these projects were not requested by 
the Department of Defense. It is also true that there is $12 billion in 
the bill that was not requested by the Department of Defense.
  I have a very hard time understanding the distinction between the 
other $11.5 billion that has been added and this $500 million that has 
been added. The Department of Defense and the administration's official 
position is not in favor of any of the add-ons. The question is whether 
we are going to provide family housing, whether we are going to provide 
day care centers, whether we are going to provide fitness centers and 
other quality-of-life improvements, and training for our troops, or 
whether we are going to basically neglect them and simply add on weapon 
systems.
  The argument about these projects not being requested, made by my 
good friends from Arizona and Ohio, is absolutely right. You can say 
that about the other $11.5 billion in this bill that has been added on. 
That is the reason the President says he may veto the bill. The 
question is, What are we going to add in terms of our judgment, because 
there is no request for this $11 to $12 billion that has been added on.
  It has been added on because the Senate and the budget committees in 
the Senate and the House decided that defense was a priority and that 
defense was underfunded. That was a decision we made on the budget 
resolution. When we made that decision, by its very nature, it meant 
that the Congress was going to decide to add on the money, because the 
administration has not indicated that they favor that add-on.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment or to vote to 
table it if the tabling motion is made.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, with the greatest respect to my colleague 
from the State of Georgia, I just state the add-ons were not asked for.
  Let me point out, in the future years' defense plan, specifically, 
Pohakuloa training area for $1.5 million, is not in the future years' 
defense plan; the Lansing CSMS, not in the future years' defense plan; 
the Camp Ashland training site flood control, not in the future years' 
defense plan; the Nellis Air Force Base FHP-111, 100 units, not in the 
future years' defense plan; the Air National Guard in Ontario, OR, not 
in the future years' defense plan; the Dallas Armory, not in the future 
years' defense plan; the Eastover-Leesburg Multipurpose Simulator 
Center, not in the future years' defense plan, and so forth; the 
Wyoming Air National Guard, Camp Guernsey, not in the future years' 
defense plan.
  I do not know where the Senator from Georgia gets his information, 
but I hope he corrects the Congressional Record, because they are not 
in the future years' defense plan.
  I am glad to hear a response from the Senator.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I am informed that what we have tried to 
apply here is the McCain-Glenn criteria, which is for construction 
projects. All the projects that were listed by the Senator from Arizona 
were planning and design money, which is not part of the McCain-Glenn 
criteria. We have followed those criteria, but there is no 5-year 
defense plan for planning and design money. That is lump-sum money.
  Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to point out again, first of all, the criteria 
is they had to be in the future years' defense plan for any funding; 
but, second of all, there are also projects that are more than just 
planning and design.
  We also asked the Department of Defense which of these projects were 
nondefense essential. They gave us a list of over 20 of these which 
were deemed by the Department of Defense as nondefense essential. That 
is their judgment. It is hard for me to understand how that judgment 
could be overruled, but I also understand what we are talking about 
here.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Projects That Do Not Meet Senate Criteria


                 fourteen projects that are not in fydp

       1. Hawaii, Pohakuloa Training Area, Road Improvement, $1.5 
     million.
       2. Michigan, Lansing Army Natl Guard, combined support 
     maintenance shop, $1.3 million.
       3. Montana, Billings Army Natl Guard, Armed Forces Resource 
     Center, $1.1 million.
       4. Nebraska, Camp Ashland Army Guard, training site flood 
     control project, $665,000.
       5. New York, Stewart IAP landfill cover, $2.2 million.
       6. Oregon, Ontario Army Guard, armory, $226,000.
       7. Oregon, Army Natl Guard, armory, $210,000.
       8. Pennsylvania, Ohldale Army Reserve, USAR Center, $2.3 
     million.
       9. Pennsylvania, Johnstown, Marine Corps Reserve, training 
     center, $590,000.
       10. Pennsylvania, Johnstown, Marine Corps Reserve, 
     maintenance hanger, $690,000.
       11. South Carolina, Eastover, Army Guard Multipurpose 
     Simulation Center, $224,000.
       12. South Carolina, Eastover, Army Guard, Leesburg, 
     infrastructure upgrade, $280,000.
       13. Virginia, Charlottesville DIA Facility, $4.4 million.
       14. Wyoming, Camp Guernsey, Army Guard, combined 
     maintenance facility, $935,000.


               eleven projects not ``mission essential''

       1. California, Travis AFB, two dormitories, $7 million.
       2. Delaware Dover AFB, visiting officers quarters, $13.1 
     million.
       3. Kansas, McConner AFB, dormitory, $7.7 million.
       4. Maryland, Andrews AFB, family support center, $2.3 
     million.
       5. Massachusetts, Hansuom AFB, family housing, $5.1 
     million.
       6. Nevada, Fauon Naval Air Station, Gymnasium, $500,000.
       7. Nevada, News AFB, dormitory, $10.1 million.
       8. Nevada, Faron Naval Air Station, bachelor enlisted 
     quarters, $16.1 million.
       9. Nevada, Mevis AFB, family housing, $150,000.
       10. Ohio, Wright-Paterson AFB, family housing improvements, 
     $6.3 million.
       11. South Dakota, Ellsworth AFB, CDC addition, $4.5 
     million.

  Mr. McCAIN. I believe that the States in which these military 
construction projects are located, when correlated with membership on 
the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee, 
will give a better explanation of the point Senator Glenn and I are 
trying to make here.
  I do not believe Senator Glenn or I are unappreciative of the need 
for quality of life and the absolute importance that we maintain 
qualified men and women in the military. My question is, do we have to 
maintain the quality of life in the States of members of the committee, 
or do we have to maintain

[[Page S6476]]

the quality of life in all 50 States in America?
  Clearly, the Record indicates--and I will be submitting for the 
Record in the future--that there has been a dramatic, dramatic 
imbalance in the funding for military construction projects, which, 
very frankly, do not serve the men and women well who are stationed in 
States where there is not that membership. I do not think the men and 
women in the military deserve that kind of preferential treatment.
  I have no illusions as to whether this amendment will succeed or not. 
I tell you what it does do. It makes me feel a lot better about the 10 
years that I spent trying to get the line-item veto passed. It gives me 
enormous, enormous gratification to know that next year the President 
of the United States, no matter who he is, is going to take a list like 
this, and he is going to line-item veto it, and we will spend money on 
projects we need.
  I want to point out again, we are short of sealift capability, Mr. 
President. We are short of airlift capability. We are short of 
amphibious capability. We do not have sufficient tactical aircraft to 
man our carrier decks and bases all over this Nation, including Nevada. 
We do not have the kind of modernization of our force that is necessary 
for us to fight and win battles in the next century, and our 
modernization force has dropped to practically zero.
  There are other reasons besides military construction why that has 
been the case. We have had to spend such an enormous amount of money on 
operations, maintenance, and training in order to keep our present 
forces ready.
  When we waste billions of dollars, as the Senator from Ohio points 
out--$6 billion since 1990--on military construction projects, I do not 
think it is fair for us to ask young men and women to fight and die in 
equipment that is not the very best.
  I will never forget the former Commandant of the Marine Corps who 
testified before the Readiness Committee, General Mundy. He said, ``It 
is very, very, very important that our Marines have decent housing, but 
I don't want a Marine widow to be living in a wonderful house when she 
is notified by the CO of the base and the base chaplain that her 
husband was killed in combat because he didn't have the proper 
equipment with which to defend himself.''
  Mr. President, those are not my words. Those are not my words. Those 
are the words of the former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General 
Mundy.
  If we were funding modernization of our forces and keeping up with 
the technological requirements that gave us the kind of technological 
edge that won the Persian Gulf war, I would not be nearly as vociferous 
in my opposition to the add-ons. The reality is--and you can talk to 
any objective military expert --that we simply do not have the money. 
This is not the highest priority, although it is certainly very nice to 
have things for the men and women who happen to reside in the right 
States.

  I will not inflame this debate any longer, except to say I realize it 
will lose. I do believe this is the last year for it because I believe 
the next President of the United States will exercise the line-item 
veto, and I will be one of the first, along with my friend and partner 
from Ohio, who will urge him to do so.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Solely for the purposes of trying to clarify the 
parliamentary situation and to inform Senators, it is still the desire 
of the manager to have a vote occur on the McCain amendment, on or 
related to the pending order relating to the McCain amendment, at 8 
o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator that the order 
was to have a vote at 8 p.m. If you want to change that, it takes a 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. NUNN. I ask unanimous consent that we vote on the McCain 
amendment or on a motion related to the McCain amendment at 8 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, further--I add this to the unanimous-
consent request--that at the conclusion of this debate, I ask that the 
Kyl amendment and McCain amendment be laid aside so that the managers 
can proceed with other business. Could the Senator from Ohio tell me 
how much longer he wishes to debate?
  Mr. GLENN. Not long.
  Mr. WARNER. Let us say that at the hour of 7:50, debate on the 
pending McCain amendment will conclude, at which time the Senator from 
Virginia asks that the McCain amendment be laid aside for voting, as 
stipulated in the prior order, at 8 o'clock. If it is required to lay 
aside the Kyl amendment, I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl amendment 
be laid aside, and at the hour of 7:50, the Senator from Virginia be 
recognized for the purposes of sending to the desk an amendment, which 
would require immediate consideration, and that the Senator from Texas 
be recognized for such secondary amendments that she wishes to offer, 
and that there be no time agreement on the Warner-Hutchison amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Reserving the right to object, and I hope we will not have 
to object. We have not seen any of those amendments. I am not sure what 
the unanimous-consent request is.
  Mr. WARNER. Merely a chance to get them in and get them up.
  Mr. NUNN. Maybe we need to talk a moment.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I have a few words I would 
like to say after the Senator from Arizona has spoken and the Senator 
from Ohio.
  Mr. NUNN. It sounds to me like the time between now and 8 o'clock 
will be used thoroughly.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized for 2 
minutes prior to the hour of 8 o'clock. Let us say at the hour of 7:56, 
we could have recognition, once again, of the managers.
  Mr. NUNN. I do not have any objection.
  Mr. President, I add one other thing to the unanimous-consent 
request--that is, with the understanding that there be no second-degree 
amendments to the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I have some short remarks--not a rebuttal 
but a discussion regarding some of the comments that have been made.
  Much has been made of this five-point criteria. Let me comment on 
that. Back some years ago, before we established the five-point 
criteria, the pork barreling that went on in the defense authorization 
bill was far worse than it is even now. The five-point criteria was 
never intended--and I think Senator McCain would back this up--to be 
the final goal, and that anything that fit those five criteria could 
somehow automatically be approved and be OK, whether the Pentagon or 
the President's budget asked for them or not. It was not supposed to be 
an end-all and be-all itself. It was supposed to be a way station to 
get toward having a budget put together by the Pentagon and sent here, 
which really meant what it said and it did not need us to add on 
everything else under the Sun. Nobody questions for a moment the fact 
that some of these housing projects are needed. But are they as 
important as some other things that are needed if the Pentagon had the 
choice to make that decision.

  So these five criteria, whether in the 5-year plan or future year 
plan, or whether mission-essential, or whether inconsistent with BRAC, 
when the contracts can be started or whether they are offset in some 
other defense account, all of these are things that were meant to 
tighten this up toward a way station toward getting control and 
budgeting the way we ought to. Whether the criteria apply or not does 
not mean to me they are automatically OK and that we should 
automatically approve them if they come in with a 5-year plan, which 
means we are stepping out of what the Pentagon might want to use the 
money for and projecting the money out to a 5-year future. So making so 
much out of this criteria was not meant to be the end-all or the final 
goal of this at all.
  Now, another thing was mentioned in debate--that the Guard and 
Reserve are only getting $7 million. We go through an annual ritual 
every spring on the Guard and Reserve. It does not make any difference 
what administration is in the White House. We have an annual ritual 
where they underfund,

[[Page S6477]]

through the Pentagon, the Guard and Reserve. I think it is done 
intentionally. It is done by Republican administrations and Democratic 
administrations. Why? Because they know good and well that we will put 
it in over here so the Members can take this coup back to benefit their 
local areas in the local armory, money to run the local armory, money 
to milk on it, money to rebuild the local armory, and these are things 
people were bringing back home, waving the flag that we did this for 
you in Washington.
  Every administration knows that the Guard and Reserve have a big 
enough constituency out there that that will happen. It happens every 
single year. I think it is time we put a stop to it. That is the reason 
I think we should have honesty in budgeting. This should not be an 
annual budget that lets people just bring home the bacon to the local 
armories as a way of funding this year in and year out. It should be 
done on a basis of what the Guard's and Reserve's needs are. That 
should be established by the Guard Bureau, working closely with the 
Pentagon in determining what the budget will be.
  So if we want to appropriate $600 million, if we went back to the 
Pentagon and said, we know you need some things in MilCon, in housing; 
you need a lot of things, but we will put this in and let the Pentagon 
decide, let you prioritize where the greatest needs in the services 
are, then this might make even a little bit more sense. But it does not 
to me.
  Let me comment on what the Senator from Georgia said a little while 
ago about the add-on of $11.5 billion. I agree 100 percent with him on 
that. That is the reason I voted against this bill when it came out, 
and I will still do that if that $11.5 billion add-on stays in. I have 
not voted against authorization and appropriations bills for the 
Defense Department--except for beginning last year--in all the 21-plus 
years that I have been here now. I agree with him on that. I do not 
think that add-on was needed. I disagreed with the purpose for which it 
was added on. Some of those have been addressed in amendments here 
today. We have had a chance to vote on them.
  I think that what we are trying to do is get honesty in budgeting. 
That is the purpose of this. The five-point criteria was never meant to 
be the final goal of all of this. If anything came up and qualified 
under that criteria, we would say, that is all right, it is approved. 
That was meant to be a means of trying to get some control over 
budgeting, which we did have some years ago, in the amount of add-ons 
we would make, it seemed. This was a way station toward getting to more 
meaningful budgeting.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, you cannot have it both ways. We have been 
asked to follow the McCain criteria. We do that with painstaking 
efforts. We meet every criteria that has been established. Every one of 
these add-ons meet that criteria.
  Now we are being told, well, the McCain criteria really is not that 
important. There are other things. You cannot have it every way, both 
ways, or any way. I suggest that we have to stop and find out where we 
are. First of all, this bill is less than what the House has 
appropriated. Second, we are within our 602(b) allocation. Also, we are 
$1.3 billion less than we appropriated last year. We are 10 percent 
below last year's level.
  Now, there is talk here about the States, where there is somebody on 
the Armed Services Committee or on the Appropriations Committee, and 
they are the only ones that get anything. That is absolutely 
ridiculous. I have not had an opportunity to study who got what, but I 
can name a few States that I looked at quickly while the debate has 
been going on. Delaware. There is no one in Delaware that is in Armed 
Services or Appropriations. Indiana, the same. Kansas, South Dakota, 
and North Dakota are just a few where there are add-ons. There are add-
ons because they meet the criteria set by Senator McCain, and every one 
of them meet that criteria.
  Mr. President, let us stop and understand what happens when the 
Pentagon makes a recommendation. The active military is prejudiced 
against the Guard and Reserve. Everybody who has been in the military 
knows that. They do not favor them. They want all the money to go to 
them, the active military. And so in the recommendations that come to 
us every year they neglect the Guard and Reserve. We are the ones that 
save the Guard and Reserve. That is our obligation. It may not be the 
right way to do things, but it is the only way to protect the Guard and 
Reserve. We work very hard to make sure they survive. Programs funded 
under this budget are programs that are essential to the survival of 
the Guard and Reserve.
  If the Guard and Reserve had to depend on the active military to give 
them what they wanted, they would all be out of business. The active 
military, frankly, mostly do not want the Guard and Reserve to be even 
in existence because there is competition for their dollars. That is 
why we are where we are.
  This is not a budget breaker. We are within all the budget 
constraints. We are not going outside of what has been authorized. We 
are only going not only with what is authorized but what is authorized 
under the very strict criteria set by the Senator from Arizona, Senator 
McCain. These are in the 5-year plan. They are the top priority of the 
base commander. They are mission essential. The site has been selected, 
and we can execute within fiscal year 1997, the money that is being 
appropriated.
  What more can we do? All Senators should recognize that this is not a 
budget buster. I repeat, it is within all the budget constraints set by 
the Budget Committee. We are not going outside of the money, above what 
has been authorized.
  I repeat, we are going one step further and following what has been 
set by the very strict McCain criteria. Mr. President, we believe that, 
if we step back and take a look at this, we find that the Armed 
Services Committee used very stringent criteria to ensure that all 
projects authorized were determined to have met the criteria that we 
have outlined.
  The projects which have been authorized are necessary to maintain the 
stability of our National Guard and Reserve and to continue to enhance 
the quality of life of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Almost 60 
percent of this amount that is attempted to be stripped from this bill 
is designated for construction of Guard and Reserve projects.
  I say with all respect to the senior Senator from Arizona, these are 
not projects that are going to get any headlines because you strike 
them from the bill. These are projects that help the men and women who 
defend our country. The Pentagon simply did not put them in their 
request, knowing we would step forward and try to help them.
  These projects help the Guard and Reserve from the State of Ohio. The 
Senator from Ohio did not ask for this money, but we felt it was 
important. We have two add-ons for the State of Ohio because the Ohio 
Guard and Reserve believe they are essential to their mission. We knew 
when we did this bill that the Senator from Ohio would be here with our 
friend from the State of Arizona complaining about these add-ons. But 
we felt it was important to the people of Ohio to have the Guard and 
Reserve strong there, as it should be all over the country.
  With the downsizing of our military, we are going to have to become 
even more aware of the importance of the Guard and Reserve. Stories 
have been written and will continue to be written about how important 
the Guard and Reserve was in Desert Storm, how effective and important 
they have been in our situation in the Balkans.
  So there is no apology for what we have done in the Military 
Construction Subcommittee. We have done what is really important, and 
we appreciate the direction and guidance given by the Armed Services 
Committee under the leadership of the senior Senator from South 
Carolina and the Senator from the State of Kentucky.
  I move to table the McCain amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. REID. I am happy to withhold that until the Senator from Arizona 
speaks.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada and the 
Senator from Montana. I think they have done a dedicated job. We have a 
disagreement, but I know for a fact that

[[Page S6478]]

the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Nevada are dedicated to 
improving the quality of life for the men and women in the military. We 
have an honest difference of opinion. But I appreciate very much their 
efforts. I appreciate the cooperative spirit in which we have worked 
over many years, along with the Senator from Ohio. I disagree, 
obviously, as I have pointed out, with this add-on, but that in no way 
diminishes the dedication and effort on the part of the Senator from 
Montana and the Senator from Nevada to try to provide a decent quality 
of life for men and women in the military.
  I also want to point out again the reason I began with. The Senator 
from Nevada pointed out a very legitimate aspect of this whole process. 
The Guard and Reserve have now become dependent on the Congress to 
provide the funding that they need--the Senator from Nevada is exactly 
right--because they know that the Pentagon knows that, if they do not 
request it, it will be added on in the process that we go through here.
  Mr. President, it is a stated reality, but it is wrong. It is wrong, 
and we have to fix this. We have to force the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense in the Department of Defense to come over here with 
legitimate needs and requirements that the Guard and Reserve have.
  I look forward to working with the Senator from Montana and the 
Senator from Nevada in trying to fix this gross inequity which has 
become part of the system that we have today.
  Mr. President, I understand my time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. May the Chair advise the Senate that under a 
previous order we have 2 minutes remaining for the managers to wrap up?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are still 2 minutes for each manager.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield back such time as is reserved for 
the purpose of the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, if I could ask the Chair, would the proper 
motion be that we proceed immediately to a rollcall vote? As I 
understand it, we do not have any more time on this. We basically have 
an order for an 8 o'clock vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. We have an order for 2 minutes in behalf of the Senator 
from Virginia, which I yielded back.
  Mr. REID. I move to table, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  Mr. NUNN. I believe we object to moving up of the time. I think we 
need to delay the clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I renew my motion to table, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Nevada to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Arizona. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato] 
and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and 
the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 164 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--13

     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Brown
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     McCain
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bumpers
     D'Amato
     Grams
     Moseley-Braun
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4060) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we want to continue to move forward on this 
legislation. We have not made a lot of good progress, but the chairman 
and the ranking member are working on that, trying to get a list of 
amendments that can be agreed to.
  I hope a block of those can be done tonight. After consultation with 
the Democratic leader, it is our intent at this time for the committee 
to take up another amendment and complete all debate on that, see what 
other issues can be agreed to and done tonight, and the first vote then 
be rolled over and occur in the morning at 9:15.
  Mr. INOUYE. 9:15?
  Mr. LOTT. 9:15 in the morning.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know we have had the opportunity to 
discuss what will happen after the Federal Reserve debate is completed 
and the votes are taken at 2:15. We have been in consultation, and it 
is my understanding the Senator from Arkansas has been able to work out 
an agreement with the Senator from Utah with regard to his amendment. I 
think they have also agreed to a time limit within which that amendment 
can be taken up.
  Is the majority leader at this time ready to enter into an agreement 
on that, or do we need to continue some consultation?
  Mr. LOTT. I would like to have an opportunity to check with the 
Senators who have an interest in it from a committee jurisdiction 
standpoint and other interests.
  I am under the impression that probably can be worked out, but if the 
Senator will allow me to check on it, because I would like to get 
things lined up to go forward. If it is going to be offered, let us get 
an arrangement to get it done and move forward. I would like to talk 
with two of the Senators I know who have a special interest in it.
  Mr. DASCHLE. We will work with the majority leader to see if that can 
be accommodated, and we can lock that in perhaps tomorrow morning.
  Mr. PRYOR. If the distinguished leader will yield for a comment.
  Mr. LOTT. I will yield.
  Mr. PRYOR. I have consulted two times in an hour and a half with 
Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has an 
intense interest in the issue. He has agreed to a time limit and hopes, 
like I do, that perhaps tomorrow after the Federal Reserve issues are 
decided, that we could then possibly go to this amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. That sounds like what we all would like to do. Give me a 
chance to check with the Senator from Utah and one other, and I believe 
we can work that out.

[[Page S6479]]

  Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Marc 
Thomas, through the Congressional Fellowship Program, who has been 
assigned to my office for sometime now, be granted privilege of the 
floor during the discussion of the defense authorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 4061

 (Purpose: To authorize $4,100,000 for the construction, phase I, of a 
      combined support maintenance shop at Camp Guernsey, Wyoming)

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending 
Kyl amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson], for himself and Mr. 
     Thomas, proposes an amendment numbered 4061.

  Mr. SIMPSON. 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:

       In section 2601(1)(A), strike out ``$79,628,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$83,728,000''.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment----
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, does the Senator have a copy of his 
amendment at the desk? We need a copy.
  Mr. SIMPSON. The amendment can be read. That will save you trouble. 
It is one line.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       In section 2601(1)(A), strike out ``$79,628,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$83,728,000''.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield just for a moment? I just would 
like to clarify with the majority leader that there will be no more 
votes tonight; is that correct?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator from Wyoming will yield for 1 
second more, I would like to clarify there will be no more rollcall 
votes tonight. I felt that was clear when we said we would roll over to 
9:15. I want to make it official.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, 
June 20, following the votes on the confirmation of the nominees to the 
Federal Reserve, when the Senate resumes consideration of the DOD 
authorization bill, the committee amendments be laid aside and Senator 
Pryor be recognized to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor. Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 4061

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the 
Defense Authorization Act for myself and my friend, Senator Thomas. 
This is a minor amendment in the greater scheme of legislative matters 
which we wrestle with in this body, but nevertheless, it is quite a 
very important matter for the Wyoming Army Guard and all Guard soldiers 
who train in Wyoming, and we train a good many soldiers in Wyoming from 
around the United States.
  The amendment would authorize $4.1 million in funding for the first 
phase of construction of a combined support maintenance shop at Camp 
Guernsey, WY. The existing critical facility is a 47-year-old, 26,000-
square-foot multipurpose repair building where all of the Wyoming Army 
National Guard wheeled and tracked vehicles and equipment, light 
trucks, the self-propelled howitzers are repaired and overhauled.
  The primary problem with the existing facility is inherent electrical 
and ventilation deficiencies that have not been able to be adequately 
corrected, despite some $270,000 in retrofits and repairs over the last 
11 years.
  Additionally, the National Guard Bureau and industrial hygiene team 
conducted an evaluation of this facility in March of 1995 and concluded 
that numerous hazards exist. Of seven discrepancies and hazards that 
exist, four have been assigned a Risk Assessment Code, or RAC, of 1, 
and the other three have been rated RAC 2.
  These ratings reflect the severity of the conditions of the facility. 
RAC 1 indicates always a critical problem and has the possibility of 
causing permanent, severe, disabling, irreversible illness or even 
death. RAC 2 reflects a serious condition also.
  Mr. President, the National Guard Association of the United States 
strongly supports this project. In a letter dated June 6, the executive 
director of the National Guard Association wrote:

       Since 13 March 1990, the soldiers working in this shop have 
     seen every day a warning on the front door that reads in 
     part--

  And here is what the warning says:

       Unsafe or unhealthy working condition. Carbon monoxide 
     level exceeds the OSHA ceiling limit.

  The only solution to protect the health and life of National Guard 
soldiers in Wyoming is to replace this building. I ask unanimous 
consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                        National Guard Association


                                         of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, June 6, 1996.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond: The National Guard Association of 
     the United States (NGAUS) is respectfully submitting this 
     endorsement of a MILCON authorization request from the 
     Wyoming Army National Guard.
       During the accelerated budget process this year, a critical 
     military construction request was initially left off the 
     MILCON project list. The request is for a Combined Support 
     Maintenance Shop (CSMS) at Camp Guernsey, Wyoming.
       According to information provided by the state, this 47-
     year old facility contains serious, inherent health and 
     safety hazards. An industrial hygiene team from the National 
     Guard Bureau has determined that the building has seven 
     serious Risk Assessment Code (RAC) discrepancies. Four of the 
     discrepancies are coded RAC 1: ``a critical problem exists 
     that has the possibility of causing permanent, severe, 
     disabling, irreversible illness or death.'' The CSMS facility 
     has inherent ventilation and electrical deficiencies that the 
     Wyoming National Guard has not been able to adequately 
     correct despite $268,000 in retrofits and repairs over the 
     last 11 years. Since 13 March 1990, the soldiers working in 
     this shop have seen every day a warning on the front door 
     that reads in part: ``UNSAFE or UNHEALTHY WORKING CONDITION 
     (DO NOT REMOVE NOTICE UNTIL CONDITION IS ABATED). Carbon 
     monoxide level exceeds both the OSHA 8 hour PEL . . . and 
     OSHA ceiling limit . . .''
       The only solution, to protect the health and lives of 
     National Guard soldiers in Wyoming, is to replace the 
     building.
       The Wyoming Army National Guard, through its Adjutant 
     General, Maj. Gen. Ed Boenisch, is requesting phased funding 
     to alleviate this health and safety discrepancy. The phase 1 
     request for the current appropriations year (FY 97) is $4.1 
     million. Phase 2 (FY 98) would be for $4.0 million.
       NGAUS respectfully urges favorable support of your 
     Committee for a floor amendment to the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (S. 1745) to include 
     this MILCON authorization request from the Wyoming Army 
     National Guard.
           Sincerely,

                                            Edward J. Philbin,

                                      Major General, ANGUS (Ret.),
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the secondary problem with the existing 
facility is the wholly inadequate amount of space, as I said. They need 
70,000 square feet instead of the current 26,000. Clearly, this is a 
quality equipment repair facility and is critical to the function of 
the combined support maintenance shop that directly impacts the Wyoming 
Guard's top goal of military readiness and those who train there, and 
there are thousands from across the United States.
  Finally, the number of specialized jobs in the combined maintenance 
shop, such as welding and fabrication operations, painting operations, 
brake shop, brake shoe rebuilding, small arms repair, and electrical 
and mechanical repairs, cannot be performed. 

[[Page S6480]]

These other operational attitudes cannot be performed at smaller 
outlying maintenance facilities.

  But, more importantly, you have health and safety as more of a 
concern. Since repeated efforts to repair the facility and correct the 
inefficiencies have been unsuccessful, closing the facility may be the 
only alternative. It is used, as I say, by thousands of people in the 
Guard units from all the surrounding States.
  The Wyoming Guard have compromised and curtailed their request for 
military construction funding to include only this critical program. It 
is an urging I make to support this amendment for $4.1 million in 
funding for phase 1 of the project, and $4 million in funding for the 
next fiscal year.
  I also cite to my colleagues, on May 6, 1996, in a letter from 
William A. Navas, Major General, U.S. Army, Director, the Army National 
Guard, in a letter to the chairman, it stated, ``Thirty-three urgently 
required projects were inadvertently omitted from that list,'' which 
was received before the committee on March 21, 1996. ``A listing of 
those projects is enclosed.'' One of those is the project for which we 
seek the funds this evening.
  I yield to my friend from Wyoming.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator from Wyoming yield to the 
Senator from Wyoming?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, I did.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will take a moment. I appreciate very 
much this opportunity. My senior Senator has described the issue. I 
just simply want to tell you that this Camp Guernsey is a very 
important part of the National Guard, not only for Wyoming, but it is 
also the training facility for a good many of the units surrounding 
Wyoming. It is an artillery unit with a range there.
  So, as the Senator said, this was inadvertently left out of the 
accelerated budget process. It combines the support and maintenance 
shop. This is a very compelling need here.
  Three tenants have occupied the same building since 1948. The 
building is environmentally in noncompliance, with problems of 
ventilation and electrical systems.
  The National Guard Bureau has identified seven serious risk 
assessment discrepancies, as the Senator has pointed out. We have, as 
was mentioned, the letter from the National Guard Association, the 
letter from the Director of the Army National Guard, written in support 
of this funding.
  The original funding actually was $12 million. Now it is less than 
that.
  Mr. President, as we downsize, of course, we call on the Guard and 
the Reserve to carry more of the load. Someone mentioned earlier in the 
debate that the Congress pretty much is responsible--the Senate--for 
supporting the Guard funds. This, I think, is part of that.
  So, Mr. President, I will not take any more time. But I certainly ask 
for support from our colleagues for this important National Guard 
addition. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Second of all, Mr. President, it is a minor item, but 
when the Senator from Wyoming yielded the floor, he yielded the floor. 
He could not yield to the other Senator from Wyoming for him to receive 
next recognition. But it is not important.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Chair notes the 
mistake.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me just say that right now, and for 
those few who may be listening or watching, if this amendment passes, 
then I encourage all of my colleagues who have a military construction 
project in their district or State, that they may want to come over and 
have an amendment, and we will have a vote--because this meets none of 
the criteria.
  This has nothing to do with any priority. This is a violation, clear 
violation of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which I will read into 
the Record again. So if this passes, I want all of my colleagues to 
come over, and whatever military construction project you want in your 
State, put it up, and we will have a vote on it, because you should 
win. You should win because there is no reason why you should not, 
because if we pass this project, then everything meets the criteria, 
including the fact that there will be no requirement for any offsets.
  So I hope my colleagues, after the vote tomorrow, if this amendment 
passes, will have lots of projects ready to vote for, because, as far 
as I am concerned, it is open season on the military construction 
situation.
  This project does not meet the criteria established for the Senate's 
authorization of unrequested military construction projects. Mr. 
President, this project is not included in the services' future years 
defense program. In other words, the Guard does not plan to build this 
project until after the year 2000.

  If the safety hazards at that location are as serious as stated 
today, then the National Guard Bureau should request emergency 
construction authority.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee was asked to review this project 
during our markup of the bill. The committee did not include the 
project because it did not meet the established criteria.
  The fact remains that the scarcity of defense resources requires that 
the Guard Bureau, the services, and the Department of Defense all make 
tough choices among priority projects. This project did not meet the 
test of urgency when considered against all other priorities for the 
Guard, and it was not included in the initial priority list submitted 
by the Guard.
  I think it is improper and counterproductive for the Congress to 
approve this. I hope my colleagues will not vote for the addition of 
several million dollars for another unrequested, low-priority project. 
However, let me emphasize, if this $4.1 million project is approved, 
then I would strongly urge my colleagues to come over here with every 
project that they have, because they deserve equal consideration. I 
have no idea how many more hundreds of millions or even billions of 
dollars we could add on in military construction projects if this one 
is agreed to.
  So, Mr. President, I guess we will find out tomorrow. But I hope all 
my colleagues will be ready with their own projects. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Let me reflect again, so the Record is clear, that I 
will have entered into the Record a letter from General William A. 
Navas, Jr., that this project was inadvertently omitted from the list. 
I restate that and ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Departments of the Army and the Air Force National Guard 
           Bureau, Army Pentagon,
                                                   Washington, DC.
     Re Installation, Logistics, and Environment Directorate.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness, Committee on Armed 
         Services, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: During a hearing before the Senate 
     Appropriations Military Construction Subcommittee on March 
     21, 1996, I was asked to provide a $250 Million priority list 
     of Army National Guard Military Construction projects. This 
     list was sent to Congress by the Army Secretariat.
       Thirty-three urgently required projects were inadvertently 
     omitted from that list. A listing of these projects is 
     enclosed.
           Sincerely,
                                            William A. Navas, Jr.,
                                    Director, Army National Guard.

               Army National Guard Military Construction

                                                                 Amount
Alaska: Bethel--AASF Taxiway Upgrade.............................$1.838
Alabama: Birmingham--Joint Med Tng Facility.......................4.600
California: Los Alamitos--JP-8 Fuel Fac, supplemental.............1.092
Connecticut:
    Camp Hartell--CSMS/OMS........................................4.700
    Camp Hartell--Armory..........................................8,500
    Groton--AVCRAD................................................5.647
Florida:
    Camp Blanding--Combined Support Maint Shops...................8.068
    Lakeland--Limited AASF........................................5.000
    MacDill--AASF.................................................4.248
Indiana:
    Camp Atterbury--Water System Upgrade..........................5.534

[[Page S6481]]

    Marion--OMS...................................................1.121
Kentucky:
    Western KY Tng Site--Phase III...............................11.995
    Fort Knox--MATES..............................................2.691
    Western KY Tng Site--Phase IV................................11.000
    Western KY Tng Site--Phase V.................................18.024
Massachusetts: Milford--USPFO Warehouse renovation................7.099
Michigan: Fort Custer--Education Support Facility.................3.497
New Mexico: Taos--Armory..........................................1.935
North Carolina:
    Charlotte--Armory.............................................5.994
    Charlottee--OMS...............................................3.673
    Fort Bragg--Mil Ed Fac Ph I..................................15.844
    Fort Bragg--Mil Ed Fac Ph II..................................4.985
Oregon:
    Salem--Armed Force Reserve Center............................11.000
    Eugene--Armory...............................................11.796
    Eugene--OMS...................................................2.136
South Carolina:
    Eastover--Readiness Center....................................5.994
    Eastover--Simulation Center...................................2.800
    Eastover--Infrastructure Upgrade..............................3.500
Tennessee:
Chattanooga--AAOF.................................................3.414
West Virginia:
Camp Dawson--Mil Ed Fac..........................................15.144
Camp Dawson--Armory...............................................6.954
Wyoming: Camp Guernsey--CSMS/OMS/UTES............................11.692

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have spent little time in my 18 years 
in the Senate wandering in here to talk about any project. In fact, I 
believe that this would be perhaps the first time because these things 
have usually been very well considered.
  This is something that did not get considered properly. That is why 
we are here, to seek an authorization to place it before the Senate on 
a priority. I believe that I am told that there are not more than four 
or five amendments that are out here that have to do with adding money 
or add-ons.
  So if the invitation is to come to the floor to bring in your 
favorite dog or cat, there have not been many people doing that. There 
are about five. That will not cause some breach in the diet that will 
create an onslaught on this measure. So I want that clear, if we can. 
And we have inserted the letter in the Record. I suggest to our 
colleagues that this is very necessary for one of the few Guard units 
in the United States that trains the rest of them from the rest of the 
United States.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. The Senator from Wyoming, Senator Simpson, is exactly 
correct on this matter. We have the letter in from William A. Navas, 
Jr., Major General, U.S. Army, Director, Army National Guard. The 
Senator from Wyoming has already read the letter. He basically says 
that 33 urgently required projects were inadvertently omitted from the 
list that was submitted.
  The reason this project was not included to begin with was because it 
did not meet the criteria because it was not in the 5-year defense 
plan. This letter says that was an error. So I just want to make it 
clear that what the Senator has said, from my perspective and the 
perspective from this side of the aisle, is exactly right. This would 
have been part of the list had it been listed as is now listed by 
General Navas, Major General, U.S. Army, Director, Army National Guard.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I just want to reiterate again, so others will understand 
thoroughly. When the Senator from Arizona said, come over, bring 
anything you have in mind, this is not in that category. The letter is 
here. It is entered. It was sent to the committee. And it was 
inadvertently left off the list. I think it is unfair to make that kind 
of a characterization.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I think we have completed 
debate on this amendment. The vote is set for 9:15 tomorrow. I think we 
can move off of it and on to whatever business the Senator from Nevada 
wishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no unanimous consent for a time 
set for the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest there is no further debate on 
this amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, in line with the Senator from Arizona, 
perhaps just a unanimous-consent request could be made that debate be 
concluded and the majority and minority leader set the time for the 
vote on the amendment tomorrow at a time certain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is in order.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I move that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NUNN. Reserving the right to object, I think the leader said 
9:15; does the Senator from Wyoming say 9:30?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I leave it to the discretion of the leader.
  Mr. NUNN. Perhaps a unanimous-consent request would reflect that.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I incorporate that within it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request is agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I add to that unanimous-consent request that no second-
degree amendments be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object to no second-degree amendments being in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears the objection.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I object to the unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4062

(Purpose: To strike the authorization for the military construction 
     project of the National Security Agency at Fort Meade, 
     Maryland; to authorize $1,400,000 for the construction of 
     a ramp addition for C-130 aircraft at Reno International 
     Airport, Nevada; and to authorize $5,800,000 for the 
     construction of a jet engine test facility/aircraft test 
     enclosure at Fallon Naval Air Station, Nevada)
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment I hope we can resolve in 
just a few minutes this evening, and I send that amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments are laid aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr. 
     Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 4062.

  Mr. REID. 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:

       In the table in section 2201(a), in the amount column for 
     the item relating to Fallon Naval Air Station, Nevada, strike 
     out ``$14,800,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$20,600,000''.
       Strike out the amount set forth as the total amount at the 
     end of the table in section 2201(a) and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$512,852,000''.
       In section 2205(a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
     strike out ``$2,040,093,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$2,045,893,000''.
       In section 2205(a)(1), strike out ``$507,052,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$512,852,000''.
       In the table in section 2401(a), strike out the item 
     relating to the National Security Agency, Fort Meade, 
     Maryland.
       Strike out the amount set forth as the total amount at the 
     end of the table in section 2401(a) and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$502,390,000''.
       In section 2406(a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
     strike out ``$3,421,366,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$3,396,166,000''.
       In section 2406(a)(1), strike out ``$364,487,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$339,287,000''.
       In section 2601(3)(A), strike out ``$208,484,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$209,884,000''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amendment encompasses two projects and 
is offered on my behalf and Senator Bryan. These two projects are for 
the State of Nevada. The reason they were not included in the matter we 
voted on last is the fact that Top Gun just moved to Nevada. It is a 
very important project for the Navy. Fallon Naval Air Station is the 
premier naval air fighting station in the whole world. Top Gun has 
moved there.
  This amendment meets all the McCain criteria of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. This project we are talking about is for testing of 
Navy jet engine acoustics at Fallon Naval Air Station. This authorizes 
appropriation of $5.8 million to move and complete a badly needed jet 
engine test facility at the Naval Air Station Alameda, which is due to 
close this fiscal year, to Fallon Naval Air Station, saving millions of 
dollars. If we wait to do

[[Page S6482]]

this, we will have to spend millions of additional moneys. This is an 
effort to save money.
  We would still be within our 302(b) allocation. It is not a budget 
buster. If we cannot do this, we would be required to construct a new 
and a smaller test facility. This is extremely important for Top Gun 
and other projects.
  Now, the other project, Mr. President. Fallon Naval Air Station, I 
have indicated, is rapidly becoming the Navy's premier pilot training 
site, including Top Gun, Top Dome, and training of the navy's elite 
pilots. If you want to have a Ph.D. as a naval fighter in airplanes, 
you have to go to Fallon and train. This project meets all the criteria 
I have mentioned.
  Mr. President, the other is a $1.4 million project that will add 
badly needed space to the aircraft parking are at the Reno Air National 
Guard for C-130's. This is a new mission they have. One thing I did not 
mention, Mr. President, for both of these projects, the money is 
offset. Both projects in the amendment are fully offset in moneys and 
for a project that is simply not usable anymore. It meets all the 
criteria. I do not need to dwell on it. I ask this amendment be 
approved.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge support of the Reid amendment when we 
do get to a vote on it. This meets the committee's criteria that 
corrects potential problems currently in the Air National Guard.
  Mr. REID. If I could say, the distinguished Senator from Arizona is 
going to object to this, but I think he would accept it on a voice 
vote. That is my understanding.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand the argument of the Senator 
from Nevada. There is not an offset in it. I understand it meets with 
all the other criteria. I oppose the amendment. I will not request a 
recorded vote.
  Let me also say I will try and have the second-degree amendment to 
the amendment from the Senator from Wyoming very soon. As I understand 
the majority leader would have liked to have had a time certain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Nevada.
  The amendment (No. 4062) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         starstreak evaluation

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to engage Senators Warner, 
Smith, and Kennedy, who are my colleagues on the Armed Services 
Committee, in a colloquy for the purposes of clarifying and correcting 
provisions in the committee's report with respect to the committee's 
funding of the air-to-air Starstreak missile evaluation, to be 
conducted by the Army.
  Senator Kennedy and I, along with other members of the committee, 
have supported continued evaluation of the Starstreak missile in an 
air-to-air role, to provide self-protection capability for the Apache 
helicopter. I understand that it has been the committee's intent to 
provide $15 million in fiscal year 1997 for the completion of the air-
to-air Starstreak live fire phase test, to be carried out by the Army's 
applied aviation technology directorate. This test phase is to be 
completed prior to conducting a side-by-side evaluation with the air-
to-air Stinger missile. It is also my understanding that to achieve the 
committee's intent, these funds should be placed in program element 
63003A, an account used in prior years for this program.
  However, the committee report placed it in a different line item--PE 
No. 23801A--and contains language that suggests an alternate use of 
these funds. I would like to correct the record in this matter.
  Mr. WARNER. Senator, you are correct on both accounts. As the 
chairman of the Air-Land Forces Subcommittee, I can attest that the 
committee's intent is to authorize $15 million in program element 
63003A explicitly for the continuation air-to-air Starstreak 
evaluation. The committee's report inadvertently implies that 
Starstreak would be evaluated alongside Stinger and placed the funds in 
the incorrect funding line. This was not the committee's intent and 
will be corrected during conference with the House.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I share the concerns of the distinguished Senator from 
Oklahoma, and thank the Air-Land Subcommittee chairman for his support. 
These actions would be inconsistent with the authorization conference 
report for fiscal year 1996 and with actions taken last year by the 
Army to move Starstreak funds into this line for the continuation of 
the air-to-air Starstreak evaluation. The Army has indicated a clear 
need for helicopter self-defense, and is completing necessary 
documentation of that requirement. To best meet this requirement, there 
must be a fair shoot-off competition between Starstreak and Stinger. 
Providing this funding is necessary to fully evaluate the Starstreak 
missile prior to any shootoff, to ensure a level playing field.
  Mr. SMITH. I concur with Senator Warner's earlier statement, that the 
$15 million for the Starstreak evaluation should be placed in PE 63003A 
and be provided for the purpose of continuing the Starstreak 
evaluation. As chairman of the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee, 
I am pleased to join my colleagues in working to bring this development 
program to a successful conclusion. The position and legislative intent 
of the committee as articulated in this colloquy will supersede that 
expressed in the committee report. Appropriate corrections will be made 
during conference on this bill with the House of Representatives, and 
the Army will be notified of our position on this issue.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank my colleagues for their assistance in clarifying 
this important matter.


                           amendment no. 4049

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I oppose strongly the amendment on nuclear 
testing offered by the Senators from Arizona and Nevada, Mr. Kyl and 
Mr. Reid. The United States is currently in the forefront of nations 
seeking a comprehensive ban on nuclear explosions. Members of the 
administration have worked assiduously to remove obstacles to such a 
ban both in the United States and among the other nuclear powers. 
Currently, we are in the final stages of an effort that could culminate 
an agreement on the text by June 28, with the opening of the text for 
signatures occurring this coming September.
  Getting us to this point, at which a comprehensive treaty ban is 
almost in hand, has been both slow and tortuous. I recall well that 
President John F. Kennedy hoped to bring about a complete ban on 
nuclear testing. By building upon the positive aspects on both sides, 
he was able to bring about the breakthrough that produced the Limited 
Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which limited nuclear testing to the 
underground environment and spared the world further exposure to 
radiation and fallout from the tests by the three signatories, the 
United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union.

  In 1974, President Nixon achieved the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, and 
President Ford accomplished the Peaceful Nuclear Explosives Treaty in 
1976. In 1990, while I was chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
Relations, the committee and the Senate approved ratification of those 
two treaties. The complete ban has been an oft-stated goal of the 
United States for more than three decades and it has been pursued with 
varying degrees of enthusiasm. In recent years, as some questions of 
safety and reliability of nuclear weapons have been resolved and as our 
scientific community has, with methods of ensuring the safety and 
reliability of the stockpile without resort to nuclear testing, it has 
become increasing clear that nuclear testing is no longer an imperative 
and that national interests of the United States would be served by an 
end to nuclear testing.
  When the administration succeeded last year in securing the 
unconditioned and permanent extension of the nonproliferation treaty, 
we were successful largely because many nations who have foresworn 
nuclear weapons trusted us and the other nuclear powers to move 
expeditiously to a complete end of nuclear testing. That goal appears 
now to be within both reach and grasp.
  As a result of legislation sponsored by Senators Hatfield, Exon, and 
Mitchell in 1992, the United States has been operating under a 
moratorium on nuclear testing that will extend through this September. 
According to

[[Page S6483]]

that legislation, the United States can only resume nuclear testing if 
another nation does so. Russia has not tested since 1992 and indicates 
it does not intend to resume nuclear testing. Earlier this year, France 
finished its latest and controversial series of nuclear tests in the 
Pacific and declared its commitment to achievement of a comprehensive 
ban. That leaves only China, which has indicated that it will conduct 
only one more test before September and then will join the other 
nuclear powers in stopping testing.
  The Kyl-Reid amendment would revoke the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell 
language, under which the United States has been engaged in the 
moratorium and moving toward a complete ban. It is correct that the 
amendment does not require testing, but it does open the way to renewed 
testing and send a completely wrong signal at this final stage of the 
negotiation on a complete ban. It would serve to undermine U.S. 
commitment to success in the negotiation. It could serve to disrupt the 
negotiation completely, and it could precipitate an end to prospects 
for a complete ban for years to come.
  Mr. President, in January, John Holum, the director of the U.S. Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency, delivered a message from the President 
to the delegates negotiating the test ban at the conference on 
disarmament in Geneva. The President made the point: ``A Comprehensive 
Test Ban Treaty is vital to constrain both the spread and further 
development of nuclear weapons. And it will help fulfill our mutual 
pledges to renounce the nuclear arms race and move toward our ultimate 
goal of a world free of nuclear arms.''
  The President concluded: ``I pledge the full and energetic support of 
the United States to conclude promptly a treaty so long sought and so 
long denied. Let us, now, take this historic step together.''
  The last several weeks in Geneva have been marked by heated 
negotiations as delegates attempt to remove final roadblocks. The next 
few days will be similarly hectic as delegates try to meet the June 28 
deadline for success. John Holum told us today, ``We are close to 
achieving our goal in Geneva. This window of opportunity is the best, 
and perhaps the last, chance to achieve this goal.''
  Mr. President, the Senate has had the wisdom to agree to the SALT I 
interim agreement, the 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, START I and 
the START II Treaty. These treaties first capped the arms race, and 
ensured the viability of strategic deterrence. Through the START I 
Treaty which is now in force and the START II Treaty which awaits 
Russian ratification, the world's two superpowers will have reduced 
their nuclear arsenals by approximately two-thirds. If we are wise and 
prudent we will move beyond that level still further to substantially 
lower levels of nuclear armament. A complete ban on nuclear testing 
will help to reinforce and invigorate that process.
  I hope very much that the Senate will decide today to keep the United 
States on the course it so wisely chose in 1992 in deciding to initiate 
a moratorium on nuclear testing.


               House Provision on Antipersonnel Landmines

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last year an amendment to the Fiscal Year 
1996 Defense Authorization bill which I sponsored with 49 other 
senators, both Democrats and Republicans, to impose a 1-year moratorium 
on the use of anti-personnel landmines, except along international 
borders and in demilitarized zones, passed the Senate on August 4 of 
last year by a vote of 67 to 27. It was signed into law by President 
Clinton on February 12 of this year. Support for the moratorium has 
broadened in the Congress since then, due to the extraordinary media 
attention this issue has received and the experience of our troops in 
Bosnia.
  Recently, it came to my attention that the House National Security 
Committee included a provision in its version of the fiscal year 1996 
Defense authorization bill, which would effectively nullify my 
amendment. This provision is identical to a provision the House 
included last year, but which was deleted in the conference.
  While I do not question the motives of the authors of that provision, 
I have communicated my concerns about it to Chairman Thurmond, as well 
as Senators Warner and Nunn. I have made clear that not only does this 
provision undermine the position of two-thirds of the Senate, it is 
totally unnecessary and premature since the moratorium would not take 
effect until February 1999. It also contradicts the Pentagon's 
considered judgment that it can manage with the Leahy moratorium, and 
ignores the administration's own position that it will not seek to 
modify or repeal the amendment.
  Mr. President, on May 16, President Clinton announced the 
administration's long-awaited policy on landmines. While I was 
disappointed that the administration did not use this opportunity to 
renounce the use of an indiscriminate weapon that is responsible for 
horrendous suffering of civilians, the President did commit to 
vigorously negotiate an international agreement to ban antipersonnel 
mines. Over the next 2 years, we will have ample opportunity to judge 
the seriousness of the administration's efforts. With 41 nations 
already on record in support of an immediate, total ban, including many 
of our NATO allies, it is crucial that we preserve the Leahy amendment 
intact in order to reinforce our support for strong U.S. leadership in 
this global effort.
  I am very pleased and appreciative that Chairman Thurmond has, like 
last year, answered my concerns by reaffirming his intention to defend 
the Senate position in conference. He was successful in doing so last 
year, and nothing has changed since then to weaken the Senate position. 
In fact, the official opinion of the Pentagon that it can live with the 
Leahy moratorium, the administration's policy to vigorously negotiate 
an international ban as soon as possible, and the growing number of 
countries that support a ban, should significantly strengthen it.
  I hope the House will reconsider its position on this. There is no 
reason for an issue that has such broad public support, from veterans 
organizations to the Catholic Bishops to the American Red Cross, to 
become an issue of contention between us. If necessary, there is more 
than enough time to revisit this when the effective date of the 
moratorium approaches.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from a May 16 
Pentagon press briefing describing the Pentagon's opinion of my 
amendment, and my correspondence with Chairman Thurmond, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             News Briefing


      Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense--Public Affairs

       Senior Defense Official #2: The President signed it into 
     law. I mean, we have not been happy with it with regard to 
     its provisions compared to this broader policy. The President 
     did accept it. And we believe we can live with it, but we 
     don't think it's an adequate--I didn't say we didn't support 
     it--I mean, we don't think it's an adequate answer to the 
     problem. And so, this policy is meant to answer the problem 
     in a broader way. If the moratorium stays in place, we can 
     live with that one year moratorium given the exceptions that 
     are written into it.
       Q: All anti-personnel mines?
       Senior Defense Official #2: Anti-personnel landmines.
                                                                    ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 1996.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Strom: It has come to my attention that the House 
     National Security Committee has included in its FY 1997 
     Defense Authorization bill the same certification provision 
     concerning my anti-personnel landmine moratorium amendment 
     that was deleted last year.
       Not only is this provision unnecessary since the moratorium 
     does not take effect until February 1999, it also would 
     nullify the effect of the amendment which was supported by 
     over two-thirds of the Senate in a bipartisan vote.
       If necessary, I will take whatever measures are necessary 
     to prevent this attempt by the House to undermine the 
     Senate's position on my amendment. However, your help was 
     instrumental in getting this same provision deleted from the 
     bill last year. Before I make any decision on this, I would 
     appreciate knowing whether I can count on you to prevent this 
     provision from being included in the final version of the FY 
     1997 Defense Authorization bill.
       I look forward to hearing from you soon.
           With best regards.
                                                    Patrick Leahy,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

[[Page S6484]]

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                Washington, DC, December 18, 1995.
     Sen. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: Pursuant to our discussion on the floor 
     this morning concerning consideration of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, I would like to recap 
     our agreement.
       We have agreed that: You will control 20 minutes of debate 
     on the landmine provision and I will control the same amount 
     of time; you will not filibuster the defense authorization 
     conference report and will not object to a unanimous consent 
     for a time certain to vote on the defense authorization 
     conference report; and if the current version of the FY 96 
     Defense Authorization bill does not become law, I will do 
     everything in my power to ensure that section 1402(b) 
     (concerning a certification in relation to the moratorium on 
     landmine use) is deleted from any subsequent version of the 
     bill. If the current version of the FY 96 Defense 
     Authorization bill is signed into law, I will do everything 
     in my power to ensure that section 1402(b) is reversed in the 
     next Defense Authorization bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Strom Thurmond,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                    Washington, DC, June 11, 1996.
     Sen. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Pat: Thank you for your recent correspondence 
     regarding the anti-personnel landmine moratorium. I 
     appreciate your bringing to my attention the provision in the 
     House defense bill regarding a requirement for a 
     certification prior to the imposition of a moratorium.
       As the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I 
     will support the Senate position on any issue that comes 
     before the conference on the defense authorization bill. 
     However, as you know, it is impossible for me, or any other 
     member of the Senate, to predict or guarantee the outcome of 
     any particular provision during the conference of a bill. As 
     always, I would support the Senate position with the House in 
     the conference on the defense authorization bill.
       As I recall our agreement last year it was that I would not 
     offer any language to the fiscal year 1997 defense bill that 
     would undermine your provision, and you would not offer 
     language regarding the anti-personnel landmine moratorium to 
     the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization bill. I have kept 
     that agreement--there is no language in the fiscal year 1997 
     Senate defense authorization bill regarding the anti-
     personnel landmine moratorium.
       With kindest regards and best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                                   Strom Thurmond,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there are a few issues which I think must 
be considered during what I expect will be complicated and 
controversial deliberations on the 1997 Defense authorization bill. 
First and foremost, this bill defines national security--the 
Government's primary obligation to its citizens.
  The United States military is the greatest military power in the 
world. In a time of rapidly evolving technology, sufficient yet 
judicious funding authority is absolutely essential to maintain the 
status quo. The committee budget is $12.9 billion higher than fiscal 
year 1996 levels. However, adjusting this figure for inflation, the 
Department of Defense will actually see spending levels reduced by $5.5 
billion from last year.
  The administration in 1994 and 1995 promised outyear funding would 
increase to recover the shortfalls driven by deep cuts in earlier 
budgets. Yet, for the second straight year, the Presidential budget is 
less than projected in previous years. I am confident that DOD will 
meet its assigned mission, but I am concerned at what cost.
  If we are to continue sending our soldiers into harm's way, this 
Nation has a responsibility to provide them with the highest level of 
technology. I often overhear comments that since the fall of the Iron 
Curtain, America has no significant enemy. However, since 1989, America 
has deployed more forces than at any time since 1964. Yes, the Soviet 
Union is no more, but renegade factions continue to threaten our 
Nation's security and vital economic interests. While we are the only 
remaining super power, our armed forces shouldn't be used in the role 
of the world's police force.
  In the past 7 years, American forces have deployed to Panama, 
Grenada, and Saudi Arabia to protect our National interests. 
Additionally, peacekeeping operations have sent our troops to Haiti, 
Somalia, and most recently Bosnia. This Nation has a responsibility to 
scrutinize each mission carefully and send American Forces only when 
absolutely necessary. The threat is still there, but its face has 
changed. America will continue to send her young soldiers and sailors 
to foreign shores to protect our peace, but we must be judicious in 
those assignments.
  As we examine the 1997 authorization, we must consider that the 
Defense budget has decreased to the lowest spending levels in 40 years. 
As we debate these issues, we must strive to produce a budget which 
defines national security and guarantees the Department of Defense has 
the necessary funding to complete all assigned, carefully chosen 
missions, obtain all training vital to success, and secure the best 
technology available. When this is finished, our military forces will 
continue to be the most influential military in the world and this 
Nation's security unquestioned.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. KEMPTHORNE. 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. NUNN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the pending 
amendments would have to be set aside by unanimous consent before 
considering this block of amendments that have been consented to on 
both sides.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside for 
the purpose of taking up these amendments. I believe there are 19 
amendments that we will be presenting, which have been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4063

      (Purpose: To specify funding and requirements for research, 
 development, test, and evaluation of advanced submarine technologies)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cohen, I offer an 
amendment that would include a provision in the Senate bill that would 
provide for explicit guidance on the intended use of funds that are 
authorized for submarine technology. I believe this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], for Mr. Cohen, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4063.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. 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 B of title II add the following:

     SEC. 223: ADVANCED SUBMARINE TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) Amounts Authorized From Navy RDT&E Account.--Of the 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by section 201(2)--
       (1) $489,443,000 is available for the design of the 
     submarine previously designated by the Navy as the New Attack 
     Submarine; and
       (2) $100,000,000 is available to address the inclusion on 
     future nuclear attack submarines of core advanced 
     technologies, category I advanced technologies, and category 
     II advanced technologies, as such advanced technologies are 
     identified by the Secretary of Defense in Appendix C of the 
     report of the Secretary entitled ``Report on Nuclear Attack 
     Submarine Procurement and Submarine Technology'', submitted 
     to Congress on March 26, 1996.
       (b) Certain Technologies To Be Emphasized.--In using funds 
     made available in accordance with subsection (a)(2), the 
     Secretary of the Navy shall emphasize research, development, 
     test, and evaluation of the technologies identified by the 
     Submarine Technology Assessment Panel (in the final report of 
     the panel to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
     Research, Development, and Acquisition, dated March 15, 1996) 
     as having the highest priority for initial investment.
       (c) Shipyards Involved in Technology Development.--To 
     further implement the recommendations of the Submarine 
     Technology Assessment Panel, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
     ensure that the shipyards involved in the construction of 
     nuclear attack submarines are also principal participants in 
     the process of developing advanced submarine technologies and 
     including the technologies in future submarine designs. The 
     Secretary shall ensure that those shipyards have access for 
     such purpose (under procedures prescribed by the Secretary) 
     to the

[[Page S6485]]

     Navy laboratories and the Office of Naval Intelligence and 
     (in accordance with arrangements to be made by the Secreatry) 
     to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
       (d) Funding for Contracts Under 1996 Agreement Among the 
     Navy and Shipyards.--In addition to the purposes of which the 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by section 201(2) are 
     available under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), the 
     amounts avilable under such paragraphs are also available for 
     contracts with Electric Boat Division and Newport News 
     Shipbuilding to carry out the provisions of the ``Memorandum 
     of Agreement Among the Department of the Navy, Electric Boat 
     Corporation (EB), and Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock 
     Company (NNS) Concerning the New Attack Submarine'', dated 
     April 5, 1996, for reseach and development activities under 
     that memorandum of agreement.

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, this amendment would add a provision to 
title II of the Senate bill that reflects the markup position on 
advanced submarine technology that is now reflected in report language 
and the funding tables that accompany the bill. This position was 
developed as a result of testimony provided at a hearing on submarine 
procurement and development and on the Secretary of Defense Report on 
Nuclear Attack Submarine Procurement and Submarine Technology that was 
submitted to Congress on March 26, 1996 in compliance with section 131 
of last year's defense authorization bill.
  The hearing and report both indicate that the approach used by the 
Navy to invest in submarine technology should be revised to accommodate 
the low rate of future production for attack submarines relative to 
cold war levels and the much higher rate of technology turnover that is 
occurring in the civilian sector. The previous focus on incorporating 
new technologies into new designs that occurred with much greater 
frequency than can be expected in the future and then reducing 
technology funding to subsistence funding until time for a new design 
will no longer suffice to maintain the technological edge that our 
submarine force enjoyed during the cold war. A more promising model 
would be the creation of a single, stable research and development 
program under a single product manager and funded at a steady state 
level that supports, matures, and incorporates new technology on a 
continuing basis. In other words a process of continuous rather than 
cyclical evolution. A far greater emphasis would be placed on 
involvement of civilian industry, particularly the shipyards involved 
in submarine construction, than has occurred in the past. The Report 
accompanying the Senate bill provides guidance that the Secretary of 
the Navy is to use these funds to carry out high priority research on 
advanced submarine technology that is identified in the Secretary of 
Defense's report.
  The House also concluded that additional funding for submarine 
technology was needed. However, consistent with the fascination with 
submarine technology reflected in last year's conference negotiations, 
the House bill would make over $200 million available for it in fiscal 
year 1997 and pursue initiatives such as the development of six 
different design alternatives at a cost of at least $500 million before 
settling on a design for series production no earlier than fiscal year 
2003. The House provision also makes very detailed allocations on how 
submarine technology funds would be spent by the Navy without providing 
any objective analysis or documented justification to support this 
allocation.
  It is clear that the House and Senate have developed divergent views 
on how the course of future research and development for advanced 
submarine technology should proceed. It appears prudent, based on the 
magnitude of funding increases in the House bill and its 
micromanagement of them, to establish in the Senate bill a provision in 
law that articulates, with more force than can be achieved with report 
language, the Senate's view on how the Navy should proceed with a 
program to develop submarine technology. This provision will provide 
stronger guidance to our conferees when they negotiate a final outcome 
in the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization bill. I encourage my 
colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, again, I point out there is no 
objection from the other side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge support of this amendment. It would 
clarify the Senate's intention on how the Navy should spend funds and 
implement recommendations of the DOD's report on nuclear attack 
submarine procurement and technology. This is an important effort to 
begin to address inefficiencies that have been identified in previous 
attack submarine R&D programs.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4063) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4064

  (Purpose: To ensure that the annual report from the Reserve Forces 
Policy Board is submitted as a report that is separate from the annual 
   report of the Secretary of Defense on the expenditures, work, and 
             accomplishments of the Department of Defense)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, I offer an 
amendment that would make technical corrections to the references to 
the annual report required to be submitted by the Reserve Forces Policy 
Board and establish that the annual report be a separate report 
submitted in conjunction with the annual report of the Secretary of 
Defense. This has been cleared on the other side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Byrd, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 4064.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. 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 E of title X add the following:

     SEC. 1054. ANNUAL REPORT OF RESERVE FORCES POLICY BOARD.

       Section 113(c) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking out paragraph (3);
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;
       (3) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)'';
       (4) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B), as 
     redesignated by paragraph (2); and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) At the same time that the Secretary submits the 
     annual report under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     transmit to the President and Congress a separate report from 
     the Reserve Forces Policy Board on the reserve programs of 
     the Department of Defense and on any other matters that the 
     Reserve Forces Policy Board considers appropriate to include 
     in the report.''.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. This amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4064) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4065

 (Purpose: To provide for managed health care services to be furnished 
  under the health care delivery system of the uniformed services by 
   transferees of Public Health Service hospitals or other stations 
 previously deemed to be uniformed services treatment facilities that 
  enter into agreements with the Secretary of Defense to provide such 
                    services on an enrollment basis)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Gorton, Cohen, 
and Glenn, I offer an amendment which would establish the integration 
of the uniformed services treatment facilities in the Department of 
Defense TRICARE health care program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], for Mr. Gorton, 
     for himself, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Glenn, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4065.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. 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:


[[Page S6486]]


       After the heading for title VII insert the following:
                          Subtitle A--General
       Strike out section 704.
       Redesignate section 705 as section 704.
       Redesignate section 706 as section 705.
       Redesignate section 707 as section 706.
       At the end of title VII add the following:
          Subtitle B--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities

     SEC. 721. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) The term ``administering Secretaries'' means the 
     Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Transportation, and 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       (2) The term ``agreement'' means the agreement required 
     under section 722(b) between the Secretary of Defense and a 
     designated provider.
       (3) The term ``capitation payment'' means an actuarially 
     sound payment for a defined set of health care services that 
     is established on a per enrollee per month basis.
       (4) The term ``covered beneficiary'' means a beneficiary 
     under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, other than 
     a beneficiary under section 1074(a) of such title.
       (5) The term ``designated provider'' means a public or 
     nonprofit private entity that was a transferee of a Public 
     Health Service hospital or other station under section 987 of 
     the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-
     35; 95 Stat. 603) and that, before the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, was deemed to be a facility of the uniformed 
     services for the purposes of chapter 55 of title 10, United 
     States Code. The term includes any legal successor in 
     interest of the transferee.
       (6) The term ``enrollee'' means a covered beneficiary who 
     enrolls with a designated provider.
       (7) The term ``health care services'' means the health care 
     services provided under the health plan known as the TRICARE 
     PRIME option under the TRICARE program.
       (8) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Defense.
       (9) The term ``TRICARE program'' means the managed health 
     care program that is established by the Secretary of Defense 
     under the authority of chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
     Code, principally section 1097 of such title, and includes 
     the competitive selection of contractors to financially 
     underwrite the delivery of health care services under the 
     Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed 
     Services.

     SEC. 722. INCLUSION OF DESIGNATED PROVIDERS IN UNIFORMED 
                   SERVICES HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM.

       (a) Inclusion in System.--The health care delivery system 
     of the uniformed services shall include the designated 
     providers.
       (b) Agreements to Provide Managed Health Care Services.--
     (1) After consultation with the other administering 
     Secretaries, the Secretary of Defense shall negotiate and 
     enter into an agreement with each designated provider, under 
     which the designated provider will provide managed health 
     care services to covered beneficiaries who enroll with the 
     designated provider.
       (2) The agreement shall be entered into on a sole source 
     basis. The Federal Acquisition Regulation, except for those 
     requirements regarding competition, issued pursuant to 
     section 25(c) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 421(c)) shall apply to the agreements as 
     acquisitions of commercial items.
       (3) The implementation of an agreement is subject to 
     availability of funds for such purpose.
       (c) Effective Date of Agreements.--(1) Unless an earlier 
     effective date is agreed upon by the Secretary and the 
     designated provider, the agreement shall take effect upon the 
     later of the following:
       (A) The date on which a managed care support contract under 
     the TRICARE program is implemented in the service area of the 
     designated provider.
       (B) October 1, 1997.
       (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the designated provider 
     whose service area includes Seattle, Washington, shall 
     implement its agreement as soon as the agreement permits.
       (d) Temporary Continuation of Existing Participation 
     Agreements.--The Secretary shall extend the participation 
     agreement of a designated provider in effect immediately 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act under section 
     718(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 104 Stat. 1587) until the 
     agreement required by this section takes effect under 
     subsection (c).
       (e) Service Area.--The Secretary may not reduce the size of 
     the service area of a designated provider below the size of 
     the service area in effect as of September 30, 1996.
       (f) Compliance With Administrative Requirements.--(1) 
     Unless otherwise agreed upon by the Secretary and a 
     designated provider, the designated provider shall comply 
     with necessary and appropriate administrative requirements 
     established by the Secretary for other providers of health 
     care services and requirements established by the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services for risk-sharing contractors 
     under section 1876 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395mm). The Secretary and the designated provider shall 
     determine and apply only such administrative requirements as 
     are minimally necessary and appropriate. A designated 
     provider shall not be required to comply with a law or 
     regulation of a State government requiring licensure as a 
     health insurer or health maintenance organization.
       (2) A designated provider may not contract out more than 
     five percent of its primary care enrollment without the 
     approval of the Secretary, except in the case of primary care 
     contracts between a designated provider and a primary care 
     contractor in force on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 723. PROVISION OF UNIFORM BENEFIT BY DESIGNATED 
                   PROVIDERS.

       (a) Uniform Benefit Required.--A designated provider shall 
     offer to enrollees the health benefit option prescribed and 
     implemented by the Secretary under section 731 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 
     (Public Law 103-160; 10 U.S.C. 1073 note), including 
     accompanying cost-sharing requirements.
       (b) Time for Implementation of Benefit.--A designated 
     provider shall offer the health benefit option described in 
     subsection (a) to enrollees upon the later of the following:
       (1) The date on which health care services within the 
     health care delivery system of the uniformed services are 
     rendered through the TRICARE program in the region in which 
     the designated provider operates.
       (2) October 1, 1996.
       (c) Adjustments.--The Secretary may establish a later date 
     under subsection (b)(2) or prescribe reduced cost-sharing 
     requirements for enrollees.

     SEC. 724. ENROLLMENT OF COVERED BENEFICIARIES.

       (a) Fiscal Year 1997 Limitation.--(1) During fiscal year 
     1997, the number of covered beneficiaries who are enrolled in 
     managed care plans offered by designated providers may not 
     exceed the number of such enrollees as of October 1, 1995.
       (2) The Secretary may waive the limitation under paragraph 
     (1) if the Secretary determines that additional enrollment 
     authority for a designated provider is required to 
     accommodate covered beneficiaries who are dependents of 
     members of the uniformed services entitled to health care 
     under section 1074(a) of title 10, United States Code.
       (b) Permanent Limitation.--For each fiscal year after 
     fiscal year 1997, the number of enrollees in managed care 
     plans offered by designated providers may not exceed 110 
     percent of the number of such enrollees as of the first day 
     of the immediately preceding fiscal year. The Secretary may 
     waive this limitation as provided in subsection (a)(2).
       (c) Retention of Current Enrollees.--An enrollee in the 
     managed care program of a designated provider as of September 
     30, 1997, or such earlier date as the designated provider and 
     the Secretary may agree upon, shall continue receiving 
     services from the designated provider pursuant to the 
     agreement entered into under section 722 unless the enrollee 
     disenrolls from the designated provider. Except as provided 
     in subsection (e), the administering Secretaries may not 
     disenroll such an enrollee unless the disenrollment is agreed 
     to by the Secretary and the designated provider.
       (d) Additional Enrollment Authority.--Other covered 
     beneficiaries may also receive health care services from a 
     designated provider, except that the designated provider may 
     market such services to, and enroll, only those covered 
     beneficiaries who--
       (1) do not have other primary health insurance coverage 
     (other than medicare coverage) covering basic primary care 
     and inpatient and outpatient services; or
       (2) are enrolled in the direct care system under the 
     TRICARE program, regardless of whether the covered 
     beneficiaries were users of the health care delivery system 
     of the uniformed services in prior years.
       (e) Special Rule for Medicare-Eligible Beneficiaries.--If a 
     covered beneficiary who desires to enroll in the managed care 
     program of a designated provider is also entitled to hospital 
     insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c et seq.), the covered 
     beneficiary shall elect whether to receive health care 
     services as an enrollee or under part A of title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act. The Secretary may disenroll an enrollee 
     who subsequently violates the election made under this 
     subsection and receives benefits under part A of title XVIII 
     of the Social Security Act.
       (f) Information Regarding Eligible Covered Beneficiaries.--
     The Secretary shall provide, in a timely manner, a designated 
     provider with an accurate list of covered beneficiaries 
     within the marketing area of the designated provider to whom 
     the designated provider may offer enrollment.

     SEC. 725. APPLICATION OF CHAMPUS PAYMENT RULES.

       (a) Application of Payment Rules.--Subject to subsection 
     (b), the Secretary shall require a private facility or health 
     care provider that is a health care provider under the 
     Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services 
     to apply the payment rules described in section 1074(c) of 
     title 10, United States Code, in imposing charges for health 
     care that the private facility or provider provides to 
     enrollees of a designated provider.
       (b) Authorized Adjustments.--The payment rules imposed 
     under subsection (a) shall be subject to such modifications 
     as the Secretary considers appropriate. The Secretary may 
     authorize a lower rate than the maximum rate that would 
     otherwise apply under subsection (a) if the lower rate is 
     agreed to by the designated provider and the private facility 
     or health care provider.
       (c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe regulations 
     to implement this section

[[Page S6487]]

     after consultation with the other administering Secretaries.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1074 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking out subsection (d).

     SEC. 726. PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES.

       (a) Form of Payment.--Unless otherwise agreed to by the 
     Secretary and a designated provider, the form of payment for 
     services provided by a designated provider shall be full risk 
     capitation. The capitation payments shall be negotiated and 
     agreed upon by the Secretary and the designated provider. In 
     addition to such other factors as the parties may agree to 
     apply, the capitation payments shall be based on the 
     utilization experience of enrollees and competitive market 
     rates for equivalent health care services for a comparable 
     population to such enrollees in the area in which the 
     designated provider is located.
       (b) Limitation on Total Payments.--Total capitation 
     payments to a designated provider shall not exceed an amount 
     equal to the cost that would have been incurred by the 
     Government if the enrollees had received their care through a 
     military treatment facility, the TRICARE program, or the 
     medicare program, as the case may be.
       (c) Establishment of Payment Rates on Annual Basis.--The 
     Secretary and a designated provider shall establish 
     capitation payments on an annual basis, subject to periodic 
     review for actuarial soundness and to adjustment for any 
     adverse or favorable selection reasonably anticipated to 
     result from the design of the program.
       (d) Alternative Basis for Calculating Payments.--After 
     September 30, 1999, the Secretary and a designated provider 
     may mutually agree upon a new basis for calculating 
     capitation payments.

     SEC. 727. REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Repeals.--The following provisions of law are repealed:
       (1) Section 911 of the Military Construction Authorization 
     Act, 1982 (42 U.S.C. 248c).
       (2) Section 1252 of the Department of Defense Authorization 
     Act, 1984 (42 U.S.C. 248d).
       (3) Section 718(c) of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 42 U.S.C. 248c 
     note).
       (4) Section 726 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 42 U.S.C. 248c 
     note).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1997.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment which 
defines the future for Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities [USTFs] 
in order to ensure that these hospitals and clinics can continue to 
provide high-quality care to thousands of military beneficiaries 
throughout the country. Senators Sarbanes, Moynihan, and Murray have 
joined me as cosponsors of this amendment. I appreciate the 
accommodation of the Committee leadership for clearing my amendment for 
inclusion in the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for fiscal year 1997.
   USTFs are former Public Health Service hospitals that were 
transferred to private, not-for-profit ownership during the Reagan 
administration. The late Senator from Washington State, Scoop Jackson, 
sponsored legislation in 1981 that completed this transition by deeming 
these hospitals and clinics facilities of the Uniformed Services and 
authorizing them to provide health care to military beneficiaries, 
including retirees and family members of active-duty personnel and 
retirees. I was proud to join as a cosponsor of that amendment during 
my first year in the Senate.
  USTFs have performed well over the past 15 years as providers of 
cost-effective and quality military health care. There are currently 9 
USTFs operated by 7 organizations serving about 120,000 military 
beneficiaries in nine States: Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. These 
facilities have a loyal base of beneficiaries who have come to rely on 
them as their primary care providers.
  USTFs have also pioneered new innovations in military health care, 
including full at-risk managed care. I sponsored an amendment in 1992 
that required the Department of Defense [DOD] to enter into agreements 
with USTFs to carry out a managed care delivery program. The USTFs 
managed care program, called the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan, 
I am told, has further reduced costs and has consistently received a 
favorable beneficiary rating in excess of 90 percent.
  The USTFs are now at a crossroads. With their current participation 
agreements expiring next year, USTFs and DOD entered into negotiations 
late last year aimed at integrating the USTFs program into the overall 
military health care system. The negotiations resulted in a set of 
``guiding principles'' which both DOD and USTFs accepted. My amendment 
implements these ``guiding principles'' by clarifying how the USTF 
program will be integrated into the TRICARE program. With one exception 
concerning the date for the application of TRICARE enrollment fees and 
increased co-payments, my amendment is identical to the provisions of 
the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
1997.
  My amendment reflects a careful compromise reached between the USTFs 
and DOD to protect the interests of the military beneficiary and the 
taxpayer. In addition to integrating the USTFs into TRICARE, my 
amendment limits the growth of the USTF program and implements a 
recommendation of a new GAO report by disenrolling USTF beneficiaries 
who receive benefits under Medicare. A more detailed section-by-section 
summary of my amendment will follow this statement.
  Mr. President, this amendment is a true compromise which serves the 
interest of American servicemen and women. It not only has the support 
of the Health Affairs Office at the Defense Department, but except for 
the one difference already mentioned, the entirety of my amendment has 
been included in the House-passed bill. I thank the Committee 
leadership for agreeing to include this amendment in the Senate bill as 
well.
  I ask unanimous consent that the summary I mentioned be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Section-by-Section Summary of the Gorton Amendment

       The amendment adds a new subtitle B to title VII dealing 
     with the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities.
       Section 721 defines nine terms in subtitle B.
       Section 722 reauthorized the USTFs as ``designated 
     providers'' of health care to military beneficiaries. DOD is 
     directed to negotiate and enter into new agreements with each 
     USTF on a sole source basis. Although the competitive 
     requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 
     would not apply, the FAR would apply to USTF agreements as 
     ``acquisitions of commercial items.'' The new USTF agreements 
     would be required by the later of October 1, 1997 (when the 
     current agreements expire) or when TRICARE is implemented in 
     the region served by the USTF. The Seattle USTF, however, 
     could begin their agreement sooner than October 1, 1997. 
     USTFs which will not have TRICARE in their regions until 
     after 1997 will automatically have their current 
     participation agreement extended. The USTFs shall comply with 
     ``necessary and appropriate'' administrative requirements 
     established by DOD for other health care providers. USTFs 
     would be exempt from state health maintenance organization 
     licensure requirements. A USTF could not contract out more 
     than 5% of its primary care enrollment without DOD's 
     approval, except for contracts in effect on the date of 
     enactment.
       Section 723 established the process for applying the 
     uniform benefit to the USTFs. The USTFs would be required to 
     apply the TRICARE Prime enrollment fees and increased co-
     payments the later of October 1, 1996 or when TRICARE is 
     implemented in their region. DOD has the discretion to 
     prescribe a later date or reduce the cost shares.
       Section 724 establishes two enrollee caps to limit the 
     growth of the USTFs. For FY-1997, the enrollee cap consists 
     of the total number of those enrolled in the program (even 
     those for which no funding was provided) as of October 1, 
     1995 plus new active-duty dependents that DOD could waive 
     into the program. For FY-1998 and beyond, the program 
     enrollee cap is 10% higher than the previous year. This 
     section also requires that all existing enrollees continue to 
     receive care under the new agreements unless the beneficiary 
     disenrolls. The USTF can also enroll additional 
     beneficiaries, but can only market to those who do not have 
     other non-governmental primary health insurance coverage or 
     are participating in the TRICARE program. This section also 
     authorized DOD to automatically disenroll any beneficiary 
     over 65 who unlawfully receives benefits under Medicare. This 
     provision reflects the recommendations of a new GAO report 
     and should prevent double payments.
       Section 725 applies the CHAMPUS payment rules to the USTFs. 
     DOD could modify the payment rules as appropriate and could 
     authorize a lower rate than the maximum rate if agreed to by 
     the USTF and the primary health care provider facility.
       Section 726 states that the form of payments for the USTFs 
     will be full-risk capitation negotiated and agreed upon by 
     DOD and the USTFs. The capitation payments must be based on 
     utilization experience of enrollees and ``competitive market 
     rates'' for equivalent health care services for a comparable 
     population in the area served by the

[[Page S6488]]

     USTF. The total capitation cannot exceed the amount incurred 
     had the beneficiary received care from a military hospital or 
     under TRICARE. The capitation payments will be established on 
     an annual basis and subject to periodic review to reflect 
     actuarial soundness and adverse selection. The USTFs and DOD 
     may mutually agree upon a new basis for calculating 
     capitation payments after September 30, 1999.
       Section 727 repeals much of the existing, now superseded 
     USTF provisions, including the statutory status, the 
     authority for managed care agreements, and the application of 
     the FAR and the TRICARE cost shares. The repeals take effect 
     on October 1, 1997.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been 
cleared.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4065) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4066

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretaries of the military departments and 
  the Secretary of Transportation to carry out a food donation pilot 
                   program at the service academies)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Sarbanes, I offer an 
amendment which would authorize the Secretaries of the military 
departments and the Secretary of Transportation to carry out a food 
donation program at the service academies, under their respective 
jurisdiction. I believe this amendment has been cleared on the other 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Sarbanes, for 
     himself and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4066.

  Mr. NUNN. 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. 1072. FOOD DONATION PILOT PROGRAM AT THE SERVICE 
                   ACADEMIES.

       (a) Program Authorized.--The Secretaries of the military 
     departments and the Secretary of Transportation may each 
     carry out a food donation pilot program at the service 
     academy under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.
       (b) Donations and Collections of Food and Grocery 
     Products.--Under the pilot program, the Secretary concerned 
     may donate to, and permit others to collect for, a nonprofit 
     organization any food or grocery product that--
       (1) is--
       (A) an apparently wholesome food;
       (B) an apparently fit grocery product; or
       (C) a food or grocery product that is donated in accordance 
     with section 402(e) of the National and Community Service Act 
     of 1990 (42 U.S.C.A 12672(e));
       (2) is owned by the United States;
       (3) is located at a service academy under the jurisdiction 
     of the Secretary; and
       (4) is excess to the requirements of the academy.
       (c) Program Commencement.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     commence carrying out the pilot program, if at all, during 
     fiscal year 1997.
       (d) Applicability of Good Samaritan Food Donation Act.--
     Section 402 of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12672) shall apply to donations and collections of 
     food and grocery products under the pilot program without 
     regard to section 403 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12673).
       (e) Reports.--(1) Each Secretary that carries out a pilot 
     program at a service academy under this section shall submit 
     to Congress an interim report and a final report on the pilot 
     program.
       (2) The Secretary concerned shall submit the interim report 
     not later than one year after the date on which the Secretary 
     commences the pilot program at a service academy.
       (3) The Secretary concerned shall submit the final report 
     not later than 90 days after the Secretary completes the 
     pilot program at a service academy.
       (4) Each report shall include the following:
       (A) A description of the conduct of the pilot program.
       (B) A discussion of the experience under the pilot program.
       (C) An evaluation of the extent to which section 402 of the 
     National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12672) 
     has been effective in protecting the United States and others 
     from liabilities associated with actions taken under the 
     pilot program.
       (D) Any recommendations for legislation to facilitate 
     donations or collections of excess food and grocery products 
     of the United States or others for nonprofit organizations.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``service academy'' means each of the 
     following:
       (A) The United States Military Academy.
       (B) the United States Naval Academy.
       (C) The United States Air Force Academy.
       (D) The United States Coast Guard Academy.
       (2) The term ``Secretary concerned'' means the following
       (A) The Secretary of the Army, with respect to the United 
     States Military Academy.
       (B) The Secretary of the Navy, with respect to the United 
     States Naval Academy.
       (C) The Secretary of the Air Force, with respect to the 
     United States Air Force Academy.
       (D) The Secretary of Transportation, with respect to the 
     United States Coast Guard Academy.
       (3) The terms ``apparently fit grocery product'', 
     ``apparently wholesome food'', ``donate'', ``food'', and 
     ``grocery product'' have the meanings given those terms in 
     section 402(b) of the National and Community Service Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 12672(b)).

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment 
which would establish a voluntary food donation pilot program at the 
service academies. The amendment would provide the academies with the 
necessary authority to donate surplus foods to nonprofit organizations 
for hunger relief efforts in their local communities.
  With the need for food assistance escalating, especially among our 
working poor, this additional source of food which might otherwise go 
to waste, could help to alleviate hunger in these surrounding 
communities. I look forward to the academies' voluntary participation 
in and the overall success of this program.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. This amendment has been cleared on our side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4066) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4067

(Purpose: To provide for the designation of a memorial as the National 
                            D-Day Memorial)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, I offer 
an amendment that would designate a memorial to be constructed in 
Bedford, VA, to be known as the ``National D-Day Memorial.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], for Mr. Warner, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4067.
       At the appropriate place in title X, insert the following:

     SEC.  . DESIGNATION OF MEMORIAL AS NATIONAL D-DAY MEMORIAL.

       (a) Designation.--The memorial to be constructed by the 
     National D-Day Memorial Foundation in Bedford, Virginia, is 
     hereby designated as a national memorial to be known as the 
     ``National D-Day Memorial''. The memorial shall serve to 
     honor the members of the Armed Forces of the United States 
     who served in the invasion of Normandy, France, in June 1944.
       (b) Public Proclamation.--The President is requested and 
     urged to issue a public proclamation acknowledging the 
     designation of the memorial to be constructed by the National 
     D-Day Memorial Foundation in Bedford, Virginia, as the 
     National D-Day Memorial.
       (c) Maintenance of Memorial.--All expenses for maintenance 
     and care of the memorial shall be paid for with non-Federal 
     funds, including funds provided by the National D-Day 
     Memorial Foundation. The United States shall not be liable 
     for any expense incurred for the maintenance and care of the 
     memorial.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the designation of the memorial to be constructed in Bedford, 
Virginia as the National D-Day Memorial.
  The Normandy Invasion of June 6, 1944--more commonly known as D-Day--
was the largest air, land, and sea invasion ever undertaken. The sheer 
magnitude of the invasion, which included 4,870 ships, 7,200 planes and 
250,000 soldiers was unprecedented. By the battle's end, causalities 
for the Allied forces numbered 9,758, including 6,603 Americans. As the 
turning point in World War II, D-Day will forever be remembered as the 
decisive battle that spelled the beginning of the end for Hitler's 
dream of Nazi domination of the world.
  Remarkably, there is no memorial in the United States commemorating 
this

[[Page S6489]]

important battle. My amendment would rectify this oversight by 
designating the memorial to be constructed in Bedford, Virginia as the 
National D-Day Memorial.
  Bedford is the ideal location for a National D-Day Memorial for 
several reasons. Most important, Bedford, VA--home base for Company A 
of the 116th Infantry Regiment--sustained the highest per-capita loss 
of any single community as a result of the D-Day invasion. In addition, 
the 88-acre scenic site is easily accessible via the interstate highway 
system and overlooks the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains.
  It is important to realize that this designation is not exclusively 
granted to the memorial in Bedford, and obligates no federal funds for 
construction or operation of the memorial now or in the future.
  When completed, this memorial will serve as a lasting tribute to all 
who took part in D-Day, as a reminder of the price paid for freedom and 
peace, and as a resource to educate future generations about the 
significance and sacrifice of D-Day.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, this has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4067) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4068

  (Purpose: To increase authorizations of appropriations for the Air 
National Guard by $8,700,000 for support of 10 primary authorized C-130 
    aircraft for each airlift squadron in the Air National Guard of 
Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and California; and 
 to increase various personnel end strength authorizations by 385 for 
                       support of such aircraft)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, for himself, 
Senators Ford and Feinstein, I offer an amendment which would authorize 
the Air National Guard to retain 10 C-130 aircraft in each of the five 
National Guard C-130 squadrons. I believe this amendment has been 
cleared on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Byrd, for 
     himself, Mr. Ford, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4068.

  Mr. NUNN. 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:
       In section 301(11), strike out ``$2,692,473,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$2,699,173,000''.
       In section 411(a)(5), strike out ``108,594'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``108,904''.
       In section 412(5), strike out ``10,378'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``10,403''.
       In section 421, strike out ``$69,878,430,000'' in the first 
     sentence and insert in lieu thereof ``$69,880,430,000''.
       In section 201(3), strike out ``$14,788,356,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$14,783,356,000''.
       In section 301(4), strike out ``$17,953,039,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$17,949,339,000''.
       At the end of subtitle B of title V add the following:

     SEC. 518. MODIFIED END STRENGTH AUTHORIZATION FOR MILITARY 
                   TECHNICIANS FOR THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD FOR 
                   FISCAL YEAR 1997.

       Section 513(b)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 305; 10 
     U.S.C. 115 note) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Air National Guard:
       ``(A) For fiscal year 1996, 22,906.
       ``(B) For fiscal year 1997, 22,956.''.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment which I am offering on behalf 
of myself and Senators Ford and Feinstein enables Air National Guard 
units in North Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Kentucky, and 
California to maintain their full complement of 12 C-130's. Without 
$6.7 million in operations and maintenance funds and $2.0 million in 
personnel funds, these units would be forced, prematurely and perhaps 
unnecessarily, to reduce their airlift capacity to 10 aircraft per 
unit.
  The President's budget for Fiscal Year 1997 reduces the Air National 
Guard inventory of C-130's in these five states from 12 aircraft per 
unit to 10 in accordance with earlier Air Force program decisions. 
However, subsequent to the FY 1997 budget submission, the Air Force 
initiated an airlift analysis which, together with congressionally-
directed C-130 Master Stationing Plan, would provide the Air Force with 
a comprehensive look at long-term airlift requirements. Therefore, it 
is premature to reduce the number of aircraft in these units until the 
total force requirements analysis is completed. If these aircraft and 
personnel are eliminated from the force, it would be difficult to 
replace them, should the ongoing study demonstrate an ongoing 
requirement for them.
  Mr. President, airlift has long been the ugly duckling of aircraft 
programs, drab and utilitarian next to the swans that are fighter and 
bomber aircraft. But airlift is essential to every military operation, 
delivering the supplies that keep our military going. Air National 
Guard units are critical to maintaining the supply pipeline, and I am 
confident that the Air Force study will recognize the value of 
retaining the maximum number of C-130's in the inventory.
  Mr. FORD. This amendment is very simple, and as I understand, is 
acceptable to both sides. During the 1997 Fiscal Year budget 
deliberations at the Pentagon, a decision was made to reduce the Air 
National Guard C-130 fleet by ten aircraft. Two aircraft would be taken 
from each of the five units in the States of Kentucky, West Virginia, 
California, North Carolina and Tennessee. However, the Air Force has 
initiated an Inter-theater Lift Analysis to determine the impact of the 
C-17 on the C-130 requirements. Furthermore, the Air Force has not yet 
completed its C-130 Master Stationing Plan.
  My colleagues and I believe it is premature to reduce the Air 
National Guard C-130 fleet below current levels until both of the 
studies have been completed and the comprehensive Total Force airlift 
requirements have been approved by Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record  
a letter from the Adjutant General of Kentucky, Gen. John R. Groves, 
Jr. General of the Kentucky National Guard immediately following my 
remarks.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         Commonwealth of Kentucky,


                               Department of Military Affairs,

                                    Frankfort, KY, April 18, 1996.
     The Adjutant General
     100 Minuteman Parkway
     Frankfort, KY.

     Hon. Wendell H. Ford,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Ford: The upcoming congressional action 
     concerning Defense Authorization Bills is one of great 
     importance to the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Nation. We 
     in Kentucky ask for you and your colleagues' support of the 
     following facts as they relate to the Air National Guard's 
     role in National Defense.
       The Kentucky Air National Guard has proven to be one of the 
     most cost-effective means of maintaining the Nation's Total 
     Air Force capability within the constraints of a shrinking 
     defense budget. This has never been more evident than with 
     our Air National Guard C-130H aircraft and unit personnel 
     constantly being involved in worldwide contingencies.
       Our Kentucky Air National Guard units as well as those of 
     other C-130 states like; West Virginia, North Carolina, 
     Tennessee and California are more involved today than ever 
     before. Recently, I watched Kentucky C-130's fly out of 
     Louisville International Airport for destination like 
     Honduras and Germany in support of Operation Joint Endeavor. 
     The men and women of the Kentucky Air National Guard perform 
     these and many other missions in support of national policy 
     with a high degree of experience and an even higher degree of 
     professionalism.
       For years the Congress has provided funding to maintain 
     several Air National Guard C-130 units at 12 primary 
     authorized aircraft (PAA). Secretary Perry has indicated the 
     Air National Guard's participation in airlift will continue 
     to increase, as I am sure is based on the great record of 
     Total Force support by Air National Guard C-130 units like 
     Kentucky. If the Air National Guard's support of national 
     defense initiatives continues, then so should the funding of 
     twelve primary authorized aircraft and its associated 
     personnel package. Reduced funds in the FY 97 Defense budget 
     and further reductions in the out years of defense budgets 
     will impact the Air National Guard's ability to step up to 
     increased operations tempo.
       We in Kentucky feel strongly that the Air National Guard 
     force structure should remain constant until a new National 
     Security Review is completed and that the C-130 airlift units 
     in the five states mentioned above

[[Page S6490]]

     should retain their current primary authorized aircraft of 
     twelve. This would most assuredly be more cost effective than 
     any reduction of authorized aircraft necessary to meet near 
     term total Air Force requirements.
       The stabilization of these five states C-130 units at 12 
     (PAA) would require Congressional restoration of $8.7 million 
     in Air National Guard accounts for operations, maintenance 
     and military personnel. Additionally, authorized manpower 
     increases of 25 AGR's 310 drill, and 50 military technician 
     positions are necessary to support maintaining these units.
       If my office can be of any assistance to you in this 
     concern of great importance to the Commonwealth, please call 
     me at (502) 564-8558. Thank you.
                                     John R. Groves, Jr. BG, KyNG,
                                             The Adjutant General.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4068) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4069

 (Purpose: To modify the specification of the source authorization of 
        appropriations for certain submarine program contracts)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cohen, I offer an 
amendment that would properly identify the appropriation that will be 
used to fund the transfer of design information for the next nuclear 
attack submarine from the lead design shipyard to the second building 
shipyard, under the terms of an agreement that has been negotiated 
between the Navy and the two building yards.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. KEMPTHORNE], for Mr. Cohen, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4069.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. 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:

       In section 123(a), strike out paragraph (2), and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following:
       (2) In addition to the purposes for which the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated by section 102(a)(3) is 
     available under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (1), 
     the amounts available under such subparagraphs are also 
     available for contracts with Electric Boat Division and 
     Newport News Shipbuilding to carry out the provisions of the 
     ``Memorandum of Agreement Among the Department of the Navy, 
     Electric Boat Corporation (EB) and Newport News Shipbuilding 
     and Drydock Company (NNS) Concerning the New Attack 
     Submarine'', dated April 5, 1996, relating to design data 
     transfer, design improvements, integrated process teams, and 
     updated design base.

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to properly 
identify the resources that will be used to carry of the transfer of 
design information for the fiscal year 1998 nuclear attack submarine 
from the lead design shipyard, Electric Boat, to Newport News 
Shipbuilding and Drydock, the shipyard that will build the fiscal year 
1999 submarine. In its present form section 123 would direct that 
design transfer be funded from the Navy's Research and Development 
account. Subsequent to markup and referral of the bill, I have been 
informed by the Navy that the correct account to fund this activity 
should be the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy appropriation.
  This amendment will require no change in funding levels in the bill 
that is under consideration. Sufficient resources have been proposed in 
the bill to carry out design transfer activities for the fiscal year 
1999 submarine. The amendment is simply a bookkeeping change that will 
properly align funding sources with intended activity.
  I encourage the other members to join me in voting in favor of this 
amendment.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. This amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4069) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4070

     (Purpose: To improve the National Security Education Program)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Simon, I offer an 
amendment which would revise the National Security Education Program by 
revising the service requirement for award recipients and making other 
improvements in the program. I believe this amendment has also been 
cleared by the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Simon, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4070.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 311, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 1072. IMPROVEMENTS TO NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal of Temporary Requirement Relating to 
     Employment.--Title VII of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-61; 109 Stat. 650), 
     is amended under the heading ``National Security Education 
     Trust Fund'' by striking out the proviso.
       (b) General Program Requirements.--Subsection (a)(1) of 
     section 802 of the David L. Boren National Security Education 
     Act of 1991 (title VIII of Public Law 102-183; 50 U.S.C. 
     1902) is amended--
       (1) by striking out subparagraph (A) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following new subparagraph (A):
       ``(A) awarding scholarships to undergraduate students who--
       ``(i) are United States citizens in order to enable such 
     students to study, for at least one academic semester or 
     equivalent term, in foreign countries that are critical 
     countries (as determined under section 803(d)(4)(A) of this 
     title) in those languages and study areas where deficiencies 
     exist (as identified in the assessments undertaken pursuant 
     to section 806(d) of this title); and
       ``(ii) pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(A) of this section, 
     enter into an agreement to work for, and make their language 
     skills available to, an agency or office of the Federal 
     Government or work in the field of higher education in the 
     area of study for which the scholarship was awarded;''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in clause (i), by inserting ``relating to the national 
     security interests of the United States'' after 
     ``international fields''; and
       (B) in clause (ii)--
       (i) by striking out ``subsection (b)(2)'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``subsection (b)(2)(B)''; and
       (ii) by striking out ``work for an agency or office of the 
     Federal Government or in'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``work for, and make their language skills available to, an 
     agency or office of the Federal Government or work in''.
       (c) Service Agreement.--Subsection (b) of that section is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking out 
     ``, or of scholarships'' and all that follows through ``12 
     months or more,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``or any 
     scholarship''.
       (2) by striking out paragraph (2) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following new paragraph (2):
       ``(2) will--
       ``(A) not later than eight years after such recipient's 
     completion of the study for which scholarship assistance was 
     provided under the program, and in accordance with 
     regulations issued by the Secretary--
       ``(i) work in an agency or office of the Federal Government 
     having national security responsibilities (as determined by 
     the Secretary in consultation with the National Security 
     Education Board) and make available such recipient's foreign 
     language skills to an agency or office of the Federal 
     Government approved by the Secretary (in consultation with 
     the Board), upon the request of the agency or office, for a 
     period specified by the Secretary, which period shall be no 
     longer than the period for which scholarship assistance was 
     provided; or
       ``(ii) if the recipient demonstrates to the Secretary (in 
     accordance with such regulations) that no position in an 
     agency or office of the Federal Government having national 
     security responsibilities is available, work in the field of 
     higher education in a discipline relating to the foreign 
     country, foreign language, area study, or international field 
     of study for which the scholarship was awarded, for a period 
     specified by the Secretary, which period shall be determined 
     in accordance with clause (i); or
       ``(B) upon completion of such recipient's education under 
     the program, and in accordance with such regulations--
       ``(i) work in an agency or office of the Federal Government 
     having national security responsibilities (as so determined) 
     and make available such recipient's foreign language skills 
     to an agency or office of the Federal Government approved by 
     the Secretary (in consultation with the Board), upon the 
     request of the agency or office, for a period specified by 
     the Secretary, which period

[[Page S6491]]

     shall be not less than one and not more than three times the 
     period for which the fellowship assistance was provided; or
       ``(ii) if the recipient demonstrates to the Secretary (in 
     accordance with such regulations) that no position in an 
     agency or office of the Federal Government having national 
     security responsibilities is available upon the completion of 
     the degree, work in the field of higher education in a 
     discipline relating to the foreign country, foreign language, 
     area study, or international field of study for which the 
     fellowship was awarded, for a period specified by the 
     Secretary, which period shall be established in accordance 
     with clause (i); and''.
       (d) Evaluation of Progress in Language Skills.--Such 
     section 802 is further amended by--
       (1) redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection (c):
       ``(c) Evaluation of Progress in Language Skills.--The 
     Secretary shall, through the National Security Education 
     Program office, administer a test of the foreign language 
     skills of each recipient of a scholarship or fellowship under 
     this title before the commencement of the study or education 
     for which the scholarship or fellowship is awarded and after 
     the completion of such study or education. The purpose of the 
     tests is to evaluate the progress made by recipients of 
     scholarships and fellowships in developing foreign language 
     skills as a result of assistance under this title.''.
       (e) Functions of the National Security Education Board.--
     Section 803(d) of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1903(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, including an order 
     of priority in such awards that favors individuals expressing 
     an interest in national security issues or pursuing a career 
     in an agency or office of the Federal Government having 
     national security responsibilities'' before the period;
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     out ``Make recommendations'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``After taking into account the annual analyses of trends in 
     language, international, and area studies under section 
     806(b)(1), make recommendations'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and countries which 
     are of importance to the national security interests of the 
     United States'' after ``are studying''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``relating to the 
     national security interests of the United States'' after ``of 
     this title'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7); and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(5) Encourage applications for fellowships under this 
     title from graduate students having an educational background 
     in disciplines relating to science or technology.
       ``(6) Provide the Secretary on an on-going basis with a 
     list of scholarship recipients and fellowship recipients who 
     are available to work for, or make their language skills 
     available to, an agency or office of the Federal Government 
     having national security responsibilities.''.
       (f) Report on Program.--(1) Not later than six months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to Congress a report assessing the 
     improvements to the program established under the David L. 
     Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (title VIII of 
     Public Law 102-183; 50 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) that result from 
     the amendments made by this section.
       (2) The report shall also include an assessment of the 
     contribution of the program, as so improved, in meeting the 
     national security objectives of the United States.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the National Security Education Program has 
been temporarily suspended. The consequence is that an estimated 324 
U.S. graduate and undergraduate student finalists are anxiously waiting 
to hear whether they will be able to study and conduct research in 
critical national security areas of the world. These students are 
waiting because a change in the service obligation was attached to the 
FY 1996 Defense Appropriations Bill to require NSEP award recipients to 
``be employed by the Department of Defense or in the Intelligence 
Community.'' Previously, students could fulfill this requirement by 
working in any branch of the federal government or higher education.
  The current service obligation is unworkable. However, I agree that 
there should be a return of investment to the Department of Defense for 
its support of the National Security Education Program. To this end I 
am offering an amendment that will improve this program by better 
targeting the service obligation to meet national security needs and to 
increase program accountability. The continuation of the National 
Security Education Program is vital to fill the existing gap in America 
for linguists and country specialists in critical areas of national 
security.
  I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a letter that 
I received from the Honorable Walter Mondale, Ambassador of the United 
States to Japan, about the importance of the National Security 
Education Program.
  As Ambassador Mondale's letter points out, we have only 1,700 
American students studying in Japan, compared with 45,000 Japanese 
students in the U.S. The National Security Education Program has made 
the largest number of awards to American undergraduate and graduate 
students to learn the language and culture of Japan. This is only one 
example of over 100 countries in which NSEP recipients have studied. 
The continuation of this program makes sense because it is in America's 
long-term national security and economic interests to educate our 
students in foreign languages and cultures.
  I urge my colleagues to read Ambassador Mondale's letter and to work 
with me to support improvements to the NSEP and the continuation of 
other federal programs that support international educational and 
cultural exchange.
  I ask unanimous consent that Ambassador Mondale's letter be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was order to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 Ambassador of the


                                     United States of America,

                                              Tokyo, May 30, 1996.
     Hon. Paul Simon,
     U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
       Dear Paul: I wanted to write you about a matter that has 
     come up to give you my perspective. I am worried by the 
     present threat to the future of the National Security 
     Education Program (NSEP). This has been a great success over 
     here. The new service requirements that mandate future 
     service in the Defense Department of ``the intelligence 
     community'' will, I fear, dry up the pool of applicants, 
     alienate the American scholarly community, and undermine the 
     ability of awardees to operate comfortably in foreign 
     countries.
       U.S. Japanese language students have been the largest 
     single group of NSEP grantees. Therefore, the impact here of 
     these new provisions will be particularly severe. Is there 
     any chance that the existing provisions could be retained?
       Increasing the numbers of American students learning about 
     Japan must be a major of our efforts here. The goal of having 
     more Americans learning about this very different society is 
     in our long-term national security, as well as economic, 
     interests. Currently, we have only about 1,700 American 
     students in Japan, compared to 45,000 Japanese students in 
     the U.S.
       Since it started a couple of years ago, the NSEP program 
     has been a welcome contributor to the in-depth training of 
     Americans. Thanks to NSEP scholarships, 100 undergraduates 
     have already studied in Japan, and some 36 more are slated to 
     come this year.
       I write you personally because I believe the NSEP program 
     has been very helpful and I hope we can keep it going as 
     presently constituted. We would be glad to provide any 
     further information that you may want.
       I hope you will have a chance to give this matter your 
     attention. Normally I wouldn't write, but I believe the 
     program as presently written is very much in our interests.
       Best wishes from Tokyo.
           Sincerely,
                                                Walter F. Mondale.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4070) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4071

  (Purpose: To require a modification of a plan for development of a 
  program leading to production of a more capable and less expensive 
 submarine than the New Attack Submarine in order to advance by three 
 years the earliest fiscal year in which a design for a next submarine 
                for serial production may be selected.)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cohen, I offer an 
amendment that deals with serial production of New Attack Submarines. 
It has been cleared by the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], for Mr. Cohen, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4071.

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

[[Page S6492]]

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of section 123 add the following:
       (e) Next Attack Submarine After New Attack Submarine.--The 
     Secretary of Defense shall modify the plan (relating to 
     development of a program leading to production of a more 
     capable and less expensive submarine than the New Attack 
     Submarine) that was submitted to Congress pursuant to section 
     131(c) of Public Law 104-106 (110 Stat. 208) in order to 
     provide in such plan for selection of a design for a next 
     submarine for serial production not earlier than fiscal year 
     2000 (rather than fiscal year 2003, as provided in paragraph 
     (3)(B) of such section 131(c)).

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, this amendment would restore the planning 
date for serial production of the next class of nuclear attack 
submarine to the fiscal year 2000, the date reflected in last year's 
Senate defense authorization bill. The amendment is intended to resolve 
a flaw in congressional direction regarding serial production of the 
next class of nuclear attack submarine that, if left standing, could 
have a devastating impact on the Nation's submarine industrial base. 
This flawed direction, contained in the section 131 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, mandates a delay in 
design competition for the next class of nuclear attack submarine until 
fiscal year 2003. It was identified in the Secretary of Defense Report 
on Nuclear Attack Submarine Procurement and Submarine Technology that 
was submitted to Congress on March 26, 1996 in compliance with section 
131 of last year's defense authorization bill.
  Under the assumption that no suitable design could be available until 
the first decade of the next century, section 131 directed the 
Secretary of Defense to plan to commence serial production of the next 
class of nuclear attack submarine no earlier than fiscal year 2003. Let 
me emphasize that the Senate conferees did not share this view, but 
accepted this proviso in section 131, and others with which they 
disagreed, in order to reach conclusion of a conference that had lasted 
far too long.
  The Secretary of Defense's report makes clear the Department of 
Defense's disagreement with the premise that the design being developed 
for the next nuclear attack submarine, now called the New Attack 
Submarine, that is to be first authorized in fiscal year 1998 will be 
inadequate for the requirements set for it by the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. This view is strongly supported by an independent Submarine 
Technology Assessment Panel that was commissioned by the Secretary of 
the Navy to assist in preparation of the Secretary of Defense's report.
  The approach recommended by the report and the panel is to: utilize 
the New Attack Submarine design as the basis for serial production; 
fund a continuing level of effort for submarine research and 
development; and incorporate new technologies that emerge from this 
research effort into the base design as they mature. These findings are 
consistent with the position of the Senate during last year's 
conference.
  This year's House version of the defense authorization bill provides 
extensive direction of how it would pursue development of the next 
class of submarine. included is direction to the Navy to develop six 
independent designs that would be completed in fiscal year 2003. The 
winning design would then become the basis for serial production of the 
next class of nuclear attack submarine. Aside from the cost 
implications of pursuing six independent designs, the consequences of 
delaying a design competition until fiscal year 2003 and the ensuing 
delay of up to two years before actual authorization of the first 
submarine would be a gap of four to five years between submarine 
contract awards no matter which shipyard, Newport News or Electric 
Boat, wins the competition for serial production. Such a lengthy 
production break could not be tolerated by either shipyard. The 
Secretary of Defense's Report points out the disruptive effect of such 
a lengthy delay and notes the need for additional authorizations in 
order to maintain a viable construction base for nuclear attack 
submarines.
  By accepting the Secretary of Defense's proposal for incorporating 
new technology into future nuclear attack submarine and setting fiscal 
year 2000 as the year in which serial production can begin, the future 
of the submarine industrial base can be preserved. The Senate bill, as 
modified by this amendment would accomplish that objective. I strongly 
encourage my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting the 
amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to know what the amendment 
is. I would like an explanation of the amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. I believe the Senator from Idaho has the explanation.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, this amendment would restore the 
planning date for serial production of the next class of nuclear 
submarines to fiscal year 2000, the date reflected in last year's 
Senate defense authorization bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4071) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4072 to Amendment No. 4061

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, with the indulgence of the managers, I 
have worked out an agreement with Senator Simpson. I would propose a 
second-degree amendment to the Simpson amendment. I believe we can 
dispose of it by voice vote. Mr. President, I have a second degree 
amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4072 to amendment 4061.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the amendment add the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of 
     the funds authorized for construction, Phase I, of a combined 
     support maintenance shop at Camp Gunnson, Wyoming may be 
     obligated until the Secretary of Defense certifies to 
     Congress that the project is in the Future Years Defense 
     Plan.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with 
Senator Simpson. I have explained to him and to Senator Thomas that the 
reason this amendment was in violation of the sense of the Senate 
criteria for MILCON, for military construction projects, was that it 
was not in the future year defense plan. Both Senator Thomas and 
Senator Simpson pointed out that it was an inadvertent absence from the 
military future year defense plan. If it was inadvertent, then clearly 
the Secretary of Defense can come over with a letter and say this is in 
the future year defense plan. And I believe that Senator Simpson and 
Senator Thomas are confident that will happen especially since they 
were assured that there is a safety and health problem here which they 
are very cognizant of, and that this is a very important project.
  I believe that it is sensible to ask for the funds to be not 
authorized until the Secretary of Defense comes over with a letter 
saying that it is included in the future year defense plan which I 
think could happen in a matter of days.
  Before I yield, I am fully aware that this is the last period of time 
here in the Senate for my dear friend from Wyoming, Senator Simpson. I 
am equally appreciative of his continuing commitment to the people of 
Wyoming, and to the Guard in his State. He has never--as he and I have 
discussed--come over for an additional project in the 10 years that I 
have here--an unauthorized project. He has never pork barreled. He has 
never sought special favors for his State. I do not believe he is doing 
so now.
  I am grateful that he accepts this second-degree amendment so that we 
can get it done in the future year defense plan and get the much needed 
project for the State of Wyoming and for the men and women who serve 
there.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona for 
helping us to resolve this issue. I appreciate his good faith 
assistance. It was important to resolving it.
  I am going to say that I am going to miss my friend from Arizona 
because we do communicate at the most earthy levels of discussion. Both 
of us have

[[Page S6493]]

been trained in different fields. But there is no one I respect more 
and admire more. And I have said that. Sometimes this is but a sparrow 
gas in the midst of a typhoon compared to what the Senator from Arizona 
and I have been into in years past, especially with regard to senior 
citizens. But we will not go into that.
  So I thank him. I very much appreciate it. I thank Senator Nunn and 
Senator Kempthorne. This is a good resolution of an issue which was 
very tough for us on behalf of my colleagues. But I thank the Senator 
from Arizona very much.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, has the second-degree amendment been 
accepted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. It has not.
  The question is on agreeing to the second-degree amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the request for the 
yeas and nays which I made earlier.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4072) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment, as 
amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4061) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4073

(Purpose: To waive a limitation on use of funds in the National Defense 
 Sealift Fund for purchasing three ships for the purpose of enhancing 
              Marine Corps prepositioning ship squadrons)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Smith and 
Santorum I offer an amendment that would reaffirm in law the authority 
of the Secretary of the Navy to acquire ships that are needed to 
improve the capability of the Marine Corps Maritime Prepositions Force.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], for Mr. Smith, for 
     himself and Mr. Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4073.

  Mr. NUNN. 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 C of title I add the following:

     SEC. 125. MARITIME PREPOSITIONING SHIP PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT.

       Section 2218(f) of title 10, United States Code, shall not 
     apply in the case of the purchase of three ships for the 
     purpose of enhancing Marine Corps prepositioning ship 
     squadrons.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, since fiscal year 1995 the Senate has 
annually sponsored in its defense authorization bill a program for 
enhancement of the Marine Corps maritime prepositioning force by the 
purchase and conversion of three ships from the world market. An 
additional ship for each of the three Marine Corps prepositioned 
squadrons will allow them to carry extra materiel, including an 
expeditionary airfield, a fleet hospital, a Navy mobile construction 
battalion equipment set, Marine Corps command element equipment, and 
additional sustainment supplies. The lessons learned from the Marine 
Corps' experience in Desert Storm demonstrate that having this 
additional equipment afloat on a continuing basis will provide our 
warfighting commanders with much greater flexibility when they choose 
to employ Marine Corps units.
  For 3 years the Senate Armed Services Committee has intensively 
studied various options for providing MPF enhancement for the Marine 
Corps. The objective has been an affordable program that will deliver 
an adequate capability at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. The 
committee has consistently concluded that a program for purchase and 
modest conversion of existing ships represents the best means to 
achieve this goal. However, the committee has avoided any temptation to 
foreclose possible alternatives. Consequently, section 345 of the 
Senate bill, which would authorize additional funds for the MPF 
Enhancement program, leaves open the option to satisfy its requirements 
by construction of new ships, if this option can compete based on cost 
and timeliness. The Senate approach is supported by the Marine Corps, 
the Navy, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and by the vast majority of 
United States shipyards.

  Although the House supported the Senate program for MPF Enhancement 
in both the fiscal year 1995 and 1996 defense authorization bills, it 
has now included a provision in its version of the defense 
authorization bill that would exclude the purchase and conversion of 
existing ships for the MPF Enhancement program. This action is yet 
another in a series of exclusionary provisions proposed by the House 
that seek to limit competition, no matter what the cost to the taxpayer 
and the ship construction and repair industry as a whole.
  My amendment would reaffirm in law an authorization for the purchase 
and conversion of the ships needed to provide MPF Enhancement for the 
Marine Corps by the most cost effective means. It will also provide a 
strong Senate position for use by our conferees that stands in stark 
contrast to the exclusionary one contained in the House bill. I 
strongly encourage my fellow Senators to join Senator Santorum and 
myself in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4073) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4074

  (Purpose: To revise and improve the authority for research projects 
  under transactions other than contracts and grants and for certain 
            cooperative research and development agreements)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, for himself 
and Senator Smith, I offer an amendment which would revise the 
legislation governing the use of cooperative agreements and innovative 
transaction authorities under section 2371 of title X, United States 
Code.
  The revisions are supported by the Department of Defense. And I 
believe this amendment has also been cleared by the Republican side of 
the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Bingaman, for 
     himself and Mr. Smith, proposes an amendment numbered 4074.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII add the following:

     SEC. 810. RESEARCH UNDER TRANSACTIONS OTHER THAN CONTRACTS 
                   AND GRANTS.

       (a) Conditions for Use of Authority.--Subsection (e) of 
     section 2371 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B);
       (2) by inserting ``and'' after semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (A), as so redesignated;
       (3) by striking out ``; and'' at the end of subparagraph 
     (B), as so redesignated, and inserting in lieu thereof a 
     period;
       (4) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(e) Conditions.--''; and
       (5) by striking out paragraph (3) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``(2) A cooperative agreement containing a clause under 
     subsection (d) or a transaction authorized under subsection 
     (a) may be used for a research project when the use of a 
     standard contract, grant, or cooperative agreement for such 
     project is not feasible or appropriate.''.
       ``(b) Revised Requirement for Annual Report.--Section 2371 
     of such title is amended by striking out subsection (h) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:

[[Page S6494]]

       ``(h) Annual Report.--(1) Not later than 90 days after the 
     end of each fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and 
     the Committee on National Security of the House of 
     Representatives a report on Department of Defense use during 
     such fiscal year of--
       ``(A) cooperative agreements authorized under section 2358 
     of this title that contain a clause under subsection (d); and
       ``(B) transactions authorized under subsection (a).
       ``(2) The report shall include, with respect to the 
     cooperative agreements and other transactions covered by the 
     report, the following:
       ``(A) The technology areas in which research projects were 
     conducted under such agreements or other transactions.
       ``(B) The extent of the cost-sharing among Federal 
     Government and non-Federal sources.
       ``(C) The extent to which the use of the cooperative 
     agreements and other transactions--
       ``(i) has contributed to a broadening of the technology and 
     industrial base available for meeting Department of Defense 
     needs; and
       ``(ii) has fostered within the technology and industrial 
     base new relationships and practices that support the 
     national security of the United States.
       ``(D) the total amount of payments, if any, that were 
     received by the Federal Government during the fiscal year 
     covered by the report pursuant to a clause described in 
     subsection (d) that was included in the cooperative 
     agreements and transactions, and the amount of such payments, 
     if any, that were credited to each account established under 
     subsection (f).''.
       (c) Protection of Certain Information From Disclosure.--
     Such section, as amended by subsection (b), is further 
     amended by inserting after subsection (h) the following:
       (i) Protection of Certain Information From Disclosure.--(1) 
     Disclosure of information described in paragraph (2) is not 
     required, and may not be compelled, under section 552 of 
     title 5 for five years after the date on which the 
     information is received by the Department of Defense.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to the following information in 
     the records of the Department of Defense if the information 
     was submitted to the department in a competitive or 
     noncompetitive process having the potential for resulting in 
     an award, to the submitters, of a cooperative agreement that 
     includes a clause described in subsection (d) or other 
     transactions authorized under subsection (a):
       ``(A) Proposals, proposal abstracts, and supporting 
     documents.
       ``(B) Business plans submitted on a confidential basis.
       ``(C) Technical information submitted on a confidential 
     basis.''.
       (d) Division of Section Into Distinct Provisions by Subject 
     Matter.--(1) Chapter 139 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting before the last subsection of section 2371 
     (relating to cooperative research and development agreements 
     under the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980) 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 2371a. Cooperative research and development agreements 
       under Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980'';

       (B) by striking out ``(i) Cooperative Research and 
     Development Agreements Under Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
     Innovation Act of 1980.--''; and
       (C) in the table of sections at the beginning of such 
     chapter, by inserting after the item relating to section 2371 
     the following:

``2371a.Cooperative research and development agreements under 
              Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980.''.

       (2) Section 2358(d) of such title is amended by striking 
     out ``section 2371'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``sections 
     2371 and 2371a''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment which I have offered on 
behalf of myself and the Senator from New Hampshire makes a series of 
changes in section 2371 of title 10, United States Code, that are 
designed to make this authority more useful to the military services 
and defense agencies.
  Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office submitted a report 
to the Armed Services Committee entitled ``DOD Research: Acquiring 
Research by Nontraditional Means.'' I was very encouraged by the 
findings of this very constructive report. The report concluded that 
cooperative agreements and other transactions carried out under the 
authority of section 2371 of title 10, United States Code, have 
provided DOD a tool to leverage the private sector's technological 
know-how and financial investment and have attracted firms that 
traditionally did not perform research for DOD to carrying out such 
research.
  Mr. President, in light of the significant declines projected in 
defense research spending and the continued rapid growth of private-
sector research investments, Senator Smith and I believe that it is 
going to become even more important for DOD to leverage commercial 
research investments and attract commercial firms to working on service 
requirements. Innovative military leaders such as the Marine Corps 
Commandant, General Krulak, and the former Vice Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, Admiral Owens, fully recognize this and are taking steps to 
insure the services leverage, and don't duplicate private sector 
efforts.
  However, the report also points out that DARPA has been the primary 
utilizer of this innovative transaction authority thus far and that 
there has been some confusion on the use of this instrument among the 
services. Since DOD is preparing new guidance on this matter, the Armed 
Services Committee in its report on the pending legislation sought to 
clarify several points. First, the committee intended in creating other 
transactions authority to maximize flexibility on intellectual property 
negotiations with private sector entities. In particular, the committee 
did not intend that such transactions be subject to the provisions of 
Public Law 96-517, as amended. The GAO report points out that this 
additional flexibility has been important in attracting commercial 
firms to carry out cost-shared research with the Pentagon. Second, the 
committee intended that the sunk cost of prior research efforts not 
count as cost-share on the part of the private sector firms. Only the 
additional resources provided by the private sector needed to carry out 
the specific project should be counted. Finally in the committee's 
hearings DOD officials testified that the reluctance of the services to 
use other transactions authority derived in part from the requirement 
that standard contract, grant or cooperative agreement first be found 
not feasible or appropriate for carrying out any given project. The 
committee did not intend that this requirement unduly restrict use of 
the other transactions instrument. DARPA has properly interpreted 
Congress' intent that if the goal of a research project is to leverage 
the capabilities of firms who will not accept a standard grant, 
contract or cooperative agreement to conduct defense research, then it 
is not feasible or appropriate to use such instruments and the use of 
other transactions authority is warranted. The committee intended that 
program managers in DARPA and the services be given the discretion to 
make these judgments within a framework provided by overall defense 
guidance. The committee urged that these issues be clarified by the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense as soon as possible so that the 
services can gain the benefits which the GAO report demonstrates DARPA 
has received from use of other transactions.

  Mr. President, since the committee's markup, Dr. Kaminski, the Under 
Secretary for Acquisition and Technology, has provided additional 
information to the committee about the changes which the Pentagon would 
like to see in the other transactions authority in order to spur its 
use by the military services. I ask unanimous consent that has written 
response to a question posed at our March hearing be printed at the end 
of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Our amendment makes the changes requested by Dr. 
Kaminski with one exception. We have preserved an annual report on the 
use of other transactions authority, but we have changed the entire 
tone of that reporting requirement. The reporting requirement in our 
amendment would essentially ask DOD to continue to update the GAO 
report on an annual basis so that we can judge how the services are 
doing in making use of this flexible authority to leverage the 
commercial sector to meet DOD's needs for dual-use technologies.
  Mr. President, I believe that it is important to give the Pentagon 
the authorities it needs to make the best use of its limited R&D 
resources. One of the great achievements of the past two Congresses and 
Secretary Perry's Pentagon is that we have really changed the 
Pentagon's acquisition system for the better. We have done this on a 
bipartisan basis, and I am glad to continue to work with the Chairman 
of the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee, Senator Smith, to bring 
about needed reforms in that system. Our amendment is a modest step in 
helping the Pentagon to leverage the private sector's $100 billion 
annual R&D investment and to broaden the industrial base that supports 
the Pentagon to include truly commercial firms. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.

[[Page S6495]]

                               Exhibit 1

   Excerpt From Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on 
  Acquisition and Technology Hearing on DOD Technology Base Programs, 
                       Wednesday, March 20, 1996


            flexible instruments for science and technology

       First, I would like to mention that we are taking actions 
     to encourage increased use of flexible instruments, which 
     include cooperative agreements and ``transactions other than 
     contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements'' (commonly 
     known as ``other transactions'' or OTs). Cooperative 
     agreements, like OTs, can have provisions designed to involve 
     commercial organizations that haven't traditionally received 
     Government awards, thereby helping to increase DoD access to 
     the portion of the U.S. technology and industrial base that 
     serves the needs of the commercial marketplace. Both 
     cooperative agreements and OTs therefore can be responsive to 
     the policy intent of 10 U.S.C. 2371. To encourage increased 
     use of flexible instruments, we are:
       Preparing to advise the Military Departments that the 
     authority to use OTs should be delegated to at least the 
     level of the major commands that have responsibility for 
     making awards under DoD Science and Technology programs. In 
     conjunction with that action, I have asked the Director of 
     Defense Research and Engineering to issue updated guidance on 
     when it is appropriate to use flexible instruments. Feedback 
     that we've received indicates that improved guidance will 
     help to increase comfort levels with the use of the 
     instruments.
       Seeking to remove factors that may unnecessarily discourage 
     potential users of the instruments from using them. For 
     example, there is a requirement to report to Congress each 
     OT, as well as any cooperative agreement that uses the funds-
     recovery authority in 10 U.S.C. 2371. It was suggested that 
     this reporting requirement is a potential disincentive to use 
     the instruments. Therefore, section 805 of the 
     Administration-proposed, national defense authorization bill 
     would repeal the requirement, and I ask that you give the 
     proposal favorable consideration.
       It should be noted that use of flexible instruments already 
     is increasing. In Fiscal Year 1994, the first year in which 
     they used the instruments, the Military Departments entered 
     into 19 cooperative agreements with provisions designed to 
     involve commercial firms that hadn't traditionally received 
     Government awards. The number of those flexible agreements 
     increased to 41 in Fiscal Year 1995. With that experience as 
     a foundation, I think that we can expect a continued increase 
     in the use of such instruments in the future, because I 
     don't believe that we've exhausted the areas of 
     opportunity for flexible instruments to help us meet our 
     objectives.
       Second, I want to provide an answer to the question about 
     the provision in 10 U.S.C. 2371 that requires a judgment 
     before using an ``other transaction,'' that standard grants, 
     cooperative agreements, and contracts are not feasible or 
     appropriate. 10 U.S.C. 2371 is a very powerful authority, but 
     it should not be totally open-ended. Creative people in the 
     DoD will continue to use the authority to invent different 
     and improved types of agreements; we can't predict today what 
     those innovations might be. In the context, this provision 
     helps to provide assurance that the powerful authority will 
     continue to be used in a disciplined manner.
       However, there are some indications that the provision may 
     be impeding use of OTs, in situations where they are 
     appropriate. The problem appears to be that some people have 
     the impression that the provision sets a standard so high 
     that it is almost unattainable. I think that one could revise 
     the provision slightly to change its tone in a way that 
     alleviates this problem, while retaining the benefits the 
     clause provides. The provision currently says that the 
     Secretary of Defense shall ensure that an OT is used for a 
     research project only when the use of a standard contract, 
     grant, or cooperative agreement for such project is not 
     feasible or appropriate. With minor restructuring of the 
     subsection that contains the provision, one could restate the 
     condition without the severe term ``only.'' I think that 
     would require thoughtful analysis before using an OT, but 
     remove the impression of an unattainable standard. Paragraph 
     (e) of 10 U.S.C. 2371 then would read as follows:
       ``(e) Conditions.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
     ensure that--
       ``(A) to the maximum extent practicable, no cooperative 
     agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) and no 
     transaction entered into under subsection (a) provides for 
     research that duplicates research being conducted under 
     existing programs carried out by the Department of Defense; 
     and
       ``(B) to the extent that the Secretary determines 
     practicable, the funds provided by the Government under a 
     cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection 
     (d) or a transaction entered into under subsection (a) do not 
     exceed the total amount provided by other parties to the 
     cooperative agreement or other transaction.
       ``(2) A cooperative agreement containing a clause under 
     subsection (d) or a transaction entered into under subsection 
     (a) may be used for a research project when the use of a 
     standard contract, grant, or cooperative agreement for such 
     project is not feasible or appropriate.''
       Third, I'd like to respond to your suggestion that Congress 
     might amend section 2371 of title 10 of the U.S. Code, to 
     clarify that the intent was to exempt agreements under that 
     authority from the Bayh-Dole requirements (chapter 18 of 35 
     U.S.C.). There is no need to amend the law; the Bayh-Dole 
     statutory requirements, by the terms of the statute, do not 
     include OTs.
       Finally, I would like to mention one point about the need 
     for maintaining good stewardship. The development and use of 
     flexible instruments to involve firms that have not 
     traditionally performed research for the Government has 
     tremendous potential benefits, but it is not without risk. 
     the goal is to find the right tradeoff or balance--one must 
     develop approaches with sufficient oversight to ensure the 
     appropriate use of federal funds but without excessively 
     intrusive requirements that drive commercial firms away and 
     deny DoD access to some of the best and most affordable 
     technology. That is both the opportunity and the challenge.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on 
this side. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the agreement is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4074) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4075

(Purpose: To make reimbursement of Government contractors for costs of 
excessive amounts of compensation for contractor personnel unallowable 
                      under Government contracts)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Grassley, Boxer 
and Harkin, I offer an amendment which would place a limitation of 
$200,000 on the amount of annual individual compensation that may be 
reimbursable under contracts with the Department of Defense.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared with the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], for Mr. Grassley, 
     for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4075.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page   , between lines    and   , insert the following:

     SEC.   . REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION OF 
                   CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL PROHIBITED.

       (a) Armed Services Procurements.--Section 2324(e)(1) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(P) Costs of compensation (including bonuses and other 
     incentives) paid with respect to the services (including 
     termination of services) of any one individual to the extent 
     that the total amount of the compensation paid in a fiscal 
     year exceeds $200,000.''.
       (b) Civilian Agency Procurements.--Section 306(e)(1) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 356(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(P) Costs of compensation (including bonuses and other 
     incentives) paid with respect to the services (including 
     termination of services) of any one individual to the extent 
     that the total amount of the compensation paid in a fiscal 
     year exceeds $200,000.''.
       (b) Civilian Agency Procurements.--Section 306(e)(1) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 256(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(P) Costs of compensation (including bonuses and other 
     incentives) paid with respect to the services (including 
     termination of services) of any one individual to the extent 
     that the total amount of the compensation paid in a fiscal 
     year exceeds $200,000.''.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment 
with my friend from California, Senator Boxer.
  Over the years, she has helped me watchdog the Pentagon.
  That is not an easy thing to do.
  Whether Republicans or Democrats are running the place, it's always 
tough to tangle with the Pentagon.
  It is an unpopular thing to do.
  She has always been a reliable defense reform ally.
  In today's political environment, dependable defense reform allies 
are hard to come by.
  They may be an endangered species.
  So I am happy to team up with her on this measure.
  It is another effort to chip away at the Pentagon culture.

[[Page S6496]]

  This is a culture that is literally blind to waste.
  It tolerates waste and sometimes even encourages waste.
  What we want to do is change that culture.
  In trying to change that culture, we hope to strengthen our military 
capabilities.
  When we add $12 billion for defense--like in this bill, we want to 
make sure we buy more capability.
  We want to make sure that we are not buying more waste and more cost.
  Our amendment would place a permanent cap on individual executive 
compensation allowable under Government contracts.
  It would set the cap at $200,000 per year.
  The cap would apply to salaries, bonuses, and other incentives.
  It would be a permanent cap.
  There is a temporary, short-term cap in effect today.
  The temporary, short-term cap was imposed by the DOD Appropriations 
Act for fiscal year 1996.
  It applies only to fiscal year 1996 contracts.
  I will discuss the existing cap in greater detail later in the 
debate.
   Mr. President, I would like to make one point crystal clear right 
off the bat.
  This is not an attempt to tell private companies how much they should 
pay their top executives.
  Instead, it would restrict what Government bureaucrats are allowed to 
pay top executives in industry.
   Mr. President, executive salaries in private industry should be 
determined in the marketplace.
  And not by a bunch of bureaucrats in the Pentagon.
  But that is what is going on.
  Right now, bureaucrats decide what is fair and reasonable and pay it.
  Our amendment would put a lid on Government payments only.
  I underscore Government payments only.
  That is the driving force behind this measure.
  The Grassley-Boxer amendment would not limit the amount of money a 
defense contractor could pay its executives.
  If, for example, a defense company wants to pay one of its top 
executives working on military contracts $6,332,000.00 a year--as one 
did, then so be it.
  Under Grassley-Boxer, the company could continue to do it--no 
questions asked.
   Mr. President, Loral Corporation's top executive, Mr. Bernard L. 
Schwartz, received a pay and bonus package in 1995 that totaled 
$6,332,000.00
  But that's not the whole enchilada.
  Mr. Schwartz will also receive a $36 million bonus for agreeing to 
sell his company's defense business. The buyer is the Lockheed Martin 
Corp.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to place a recent newspaper 
article about Mr. Schwartz's pay in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 16, 1996]

    Loral Chairman to Give $18 Million of Merger Fee to 40 Employees

                            (By John Mintz)

       Loral Corp. Chairman Bernard L. Schwartz will receive a $36 
     million bonus for agreeing to sell his company's defense 
     business to Lockheed Martin Corp., but will give $18 million 
     of it to a group of Loral employees, according to documents 
     filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
       The money Schwartz is giving up will reward 40 people in 
     Loral's Manhattan headquarters who may lose their jobs or be 
     demoted in the merger, according to the documents. The 
     employees, including some secretaries and mid-level 
     executives, could receive money equivalent to as much as 
     twice their annual salary and bonus.
       Loral's New York headquarters likely will close and be 
     folded into Lockheed Martin's Bethesda offices, industry 
     officials said.
       ``Their lives could be affected by the merger, and I 
     decided it would be appropriate to recognize their efforts,'' 
     Schwartz said yesterday. ``There are some smiling faces here 
     today. . . . If I'd had enough resources, I would have spread 
     it among all 38,000 Loral employees.''
       Giving such a gift to employees is extremely rare in 
     mergers, investment bankers said. Schwartz, the only liberal 
     Democrat among chief executives of large defense firms, has 
     often expounded on his views of corporate empowerment, and 
     for years has offered generous stock options to Loral 
     employees to make them what he calls ``stakeholders'' in his 
     company.
       The $18 million bonus Schwartz will collect from Loral is 
     in addition to approximately $27 million he has made on paper 
     in the value of his Loral stock due to the proposed merger. 
     He owns about 3.6 million shares, and each has increased in 
     value by approximately $7.50 following the announcement last 
     week.
       Schwartz's regular annual compensation and bonus from the 
     company in 1995 totaled $6,332,000.
       The proposed merger with Lockheed Martin was announced last 
     week. If Loral pulls out of the transaction, it must pay 
     Lockheed Martin a termination fee of $175 million, according 
     to the SEC filings.
       Meanwhile, the Pentagon has largely sided with Lockheed 
     Martin and against a group of critics in a bitter controversy 
     involving a previous merger that created Lockheed Martin from 
     Lockheed Corp. and Martin Marietta Corp. in March last year.
       In a report, a Defense Department accounting office called 
     the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) did not support 
     allegations by Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-VT.), some 
     congressional colleagues and the newspaper Newsday that 
     Lockheed Martin was improperly seeking a Pentagon payment of 
     $31 million in connection with the merger. The critics called 
     it a taxpayer rip-off.
       The DCAA recommendations, which still must be reviewed by 
     the Pentagon, were first reported in the industry publication 
     Defense Week.
       The company has asserted for months that its foes are 
     confusing two sums of money. One is a $61 million payment to 
     460 former Martin Marietta executives because of the merger. 
     The military won't reimburse firms for such payments, and 
     Locheed Martin is not asking for that.
       But the firm is asking the military to reimburse it $31 
     million that it has already paid those 460 executives. These 
     sums had nothing to do with the merger, the company has said.
       The military pays contracts on a ``cost-plus'' basis, 
     meaning the companies tell the Pentagon about their expenses, 
     including overhead, cost of labor and materials, and 
     executive compensation. The military decides which requests 
     are ``reasonable,'' computes the profit and pays the 
     appropriate amounts.
       The company has said the $31 million was part of its long-
     standing executive compensation package and not, as Sanders 
     asserted, a cozy Pentagon pay-off to high-ranking executives 
     for arranging the merger.
       Now the Pentagon's DCAA has concluded that $16 million of 
     the firm's $31 million in reimbursement requests was proper, 
     has deferred consideration on $9 million and raised questions 
     about $6 million of the requested amount. The questions, 
     however, focused on complex government accounting issues and 
     did not directly track with Sanders' objections.
       Congressional offices were closed for the holiday. Calls to 
     Sanders' office seeking comment were not answered.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, that is a big bundle of money going to 
Mr. Schwartz.
  But I am not questioning whether he earned or deserved it.
  Under Grassley-Boxer, he would get it.
  I owe it to my colleague to point out that Mr. Schwartz is at the 
high end of the defense executive wage scale.
  The others' salary and bonus packages are not quite so generous.
  They ranged from about $1 million up to $2,500,000 in 1995.
  Some are slightly lower.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to place the latest data on 
defense executive compensation in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Reasonableness Test for Executive Compensation

       Made in accordance with FAR 31-205-6, compensation for 
     personal services.
       Considers same relevant factors, i.e., We check for 
     conformity with firms of: same size/industry/geographic area 
     and gov't/non-gov't business.
       Includes all remuneration paid although elements also 
     individually assessed.
       In sync with fact that FAR places burden of proof on 
     company (i.e., upon challenge, company must demonstrate 
     reasonableness).
       On balance, experience has shown process to be generally 
     fair/not arbitrary.


               basic audit steps for reasonableness test

       1. Identify exec positions, comp amts, sales volume data, & 
     industry.
       2. Use multiple survey sources to compare cash comp amts by 
     exec positions & gain mkt consensus of avg pay levels.
       3. Calculate mkt avg of surveys with 10% range of 
     reasonableness.
       4. Similarly judge reasonableness of other comp elements 
     (FRINGES/PERQS/LTIs).
       5. Challenge amounts over 110% of ``market consensus'' 
     survey averages.
       6. Ask contractor to demonstrate reasonableness.
       7. Evaluate contractor's justification/rebuttal including 
     proposed offsets.
       8. Exit with contractor. Report results.


                      exec comp surveys now in use

       1. Officer compensation report (panel pubs)

[[Page S6497]]

       2. Dietrich exec engineering survey
       3. Ernst & Young exec comp surveys
       4. Wyatt Data Services--ECS
       5. TPF&C MGMT COMP HIGH TECH SURVEY
       6. CD EXECSURV--MID/ATL's SEC-BASED TOP 5.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Grassley-Boxer would not restructure or 
reinvent the defense executive wage scale.
  This is what Grassley-Boxer would do: it would change the way the 
money is dished out.
  It would come out of a different pocket.
  Instead of coming right off the top of a defense contract, most of it 
would have to be taken out of profits.
  Instead of being taken directly out of the pockets of hard-working 
American taxpayers, most of the money would come from the company's 
earnings.
  The source of the money would change.
  Under Grassley-Boxer, most of Mr. Schwartz's pay, for example, would 
have to be taken out of profits.
  In Mr. Schwartz's case, $6,132,000 would come out of profits.
  The balance, $200,000, could be charged to Uncle Sam.
  Mr. President, Pentagon bureaucrats should not be put in the position 
of having to decide how much to pay industry executives.
  The Government should get out of that business entirely.
  Those decisions should be made in the marketplace.
  This amendment will start us down the road in the right direction.
  With a cap in place, we can reexamine the issue next year and decide 
how to proceed.
  Mr. President, I feel sure that some of my Republican colleagues will 
howl about this amendment.
  They will complain that Grassley-Boxer will eat into corporate 
profits and slash corporate benefits.
  We will undermine initiative and morale.
  In response, I say to my colleagues: Our defense industry is health.
  That is what the latest report on corporate earnings shows.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to place a report on corporate 
profits in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 The Leaders in 1995 Sales and Profits

                           THE TOP 25 IN SALES                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Percent           
                                        1995 sales  change from    1994 
                                       in millions      1994       rank 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 General Motors.....................     $168,829            9        1
2 Ford Motor.........................      137,137            7        2
3 Exxon..............................      109,620            8        3
4 Wal-Mart Stores....................       90,525           15        4
5 AT&T...............................       79,609            6        5
6 Mobil..............................       74,879           11        6
7 IBM................................       71,940           12        7
8 General Electric...................       70,028           17        8
9 Chrysler...........................       53,200            2       11
10 Philip Morris.....................       53,139           -1       10
11 Dupont............................       42,163            7       12
12 Chevron...........................       37,082            4       13
13 Texaco............................       36,792           10       15
14 Sears, Roebuck....................       34,925            6        9
15 Procter & Gamble..................       34,923           11       16
16 Kmart.............................       34,572            4       14
17 Hewlett-Packard...................       31,519           26       20
18 Persico...........................       30,421            7       18
19 Citicorp..........................       28,128           -3       17
20 Amoco.............................       27,066            4       19
21 Motorola..........................       27,037           22       25
22 Conagra...........................       24,637            3       21
23 Kroger............................       23,938            4       23
24 Lockheed Martin...................       22,853            0       NR
25 United Technologies...............       22,802            8       28
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         THE TOP 25 IN EARNINGS                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           1995       Percent           
                                        profits in  change from    1994 
                                         millions       1994       rank 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 General Motors.....................       $6,932           23        2
2 General Electric...................        6,573           11        1
3 Exxon..............................        6,470           27        4
4 Philip Morris......................        5,478           16        5
5 IBM................................        4,178           38        9
6 Ford Motor.........................        4,139          -22        3
7 Intel..............................        3,566           56       16
8 Citicorp...........................        3,464            1        8
9 Merck..............................        3,335           11       10
10 Dupont............................        3,293           21       11
11 Coca-Cola.........................        2,986           17       13
12 Procter & Gamble..................        2,835           17       15
13 Wal-Mart Stores...................        2,828           12       12
14 Bankamerica.......................        2,664           22       17
15 GTE...............................        2,538            4       14
16 Hewlett-Packard...................        2,433           52       23
17 Johnson & Johnson.................        2,403           20       21
18 Mobil.............................        2,376           35       26
19 Fannie Mae........................        2,156            1       20
20 Chrysler..........................        2,025          -45        7
21 Ameritech.........................        2,008           72       47
22 NationsBank.......................        1,950           15       27
23 Allstate..........................        1,904          293      136
24 Dow Chemical......................        1,891          145       59
25 SBC Communications................        1,889           15       28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Standard & Poor's Compustat, a division of the McGraw-Hill      
  Companies.                                                            

  Mr. GRASSLEY. This report appears in the March 4, 1996 issue of 
Business Week.
  Profits are reported as follows: Boeing: $393 million; General 
Electric: $6.6 billion; General Dynamics $247 million; Lockheed Martin: 
$682 million; Northrop Grumman: $252 million, and United Technologies: 
$750 million.
  They are doing OK, and that's good.
  In my mind, executive pay should be tied directly to company 
performance and to profits.
  If the company had a great year, earned big profits and enjoyed other 
successes, then the chief executive should enjoy the fruits of his 
labor.
  A big year should equal a big pay check.
  A bad year might mean a pay cut.
  The profit figures cited above are for calendar year 1995.
  During that period, only McDonnell Douglas suffered a loss.
  The company took a loss of $416 million. But guess what?
  That loss did not keep the company's top executive from drawing a 
bigger paycheck.
  The top boss' base pay went from $1.6 million in 1994 to $1.9 million 
in 1995, including a bonus of $1,042,400.
  But that is not all.
  McDonnell Douglas' chief executive, Mr. Harry C. Stonecipher, 
received a very generous share of company stock.
  Mr. Stonecipher got cash and stock valued at a staggering $34 
million--in 1995 alone.
  The other top executives at McDonnell Douglas also received handsome 
bonuses. These generous pay packages came at a time when the company 
was downsizing in the face of declining sales.
  Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a report on Mr. Stonecipher's pay package from the Journal of Commerce.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Journal of Commerce, Mar. 24, 1995]

     McDonnell Chief's Compensation Takes On Superstar Proportions

       St. Louis.--The compensation package McDonnell Douglas 
     Corp. assembled to attract Harry C. Stonecipher, chief 
     executive, last year was worthy of basketball's Michael 
     Jordan.
       McDonnell's nearly seven-year deal with Mr. Stonecipher, 
     the first non-family member to run the company, could bring 
     him more than $34 million in cash and stock.
       ``We paid the market rate for a person of his caliber,'' 
     said James Reed, vice president for communications. ``We're 
     very convinced of that, and the board of directors is very 
     convinced of that.''
       The Chicago Bulls also paid the market rate when they 
     signed Jordan, the National Basketball Association's top 
     player, to an eight-year, $28 million deal in April of 1988.
       Although the $825,000 base salary and $575,000 annual bonus 
     target McDonnell set for Mr. Stonecipher are unremarkable for 
     a Fortune 500 company, the stock incentives McDonnell offered 
     are notable.
       The aerospace giant used the promise of what is now $17.7 
     million in stock profits to persuade Mr. Stonecipher to leave 
     his job as chairman and chief executive of Sundstrand Corp.
       McDonnell awarded Mr. Stonecipher 180,000 shares of 
     restricted stock, with a current market value of $10.1 
     million. The first 42,000 of those shares vest next Friday; 
     the rest vest in 1996, 1997 and 2002.
       McDonnell also gave Mr. Stonecipher the option to buy 
     450,000 shares later in the decade for $36.96 each, the 
     market price when he joined the company on Sept. 24.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Now, why would the big boss at McDonnell Douglas get a 
huge bonus when the company sustained a $416 million loss?
  Could it be because the company has a direct tap on the DOD money 
pipe?
  When Uncle Sugar is picking up the tab, you can afford to give big 
pay raises--even when you are losing money.
  In private business, it is not supposed to work that way.
  I would like to clarify one point as we proceed with the debate:
  These defense companies are not totally dependent on the Pentagon; 
most do 50 to 70 percent of their business with the Government the 
Pentagon primarily; they are really semi-private.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the top 10 defense contractors.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S6498]]



 LIST OF TOP 10 CONTRACTORS IN 1993 WITH AT LEAST ONE-THIRD DOD BUSINESS
                          [Dollars in billions]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Total      DOD      Percent
                                             sales   contracts     DOD  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McDonnell Douglas........................     $14.5       $7.5        52
Lockheed.................................      13.1        6.9        53
Martin Marietta..........................       9.4        4.7        50
Raytheon.................................       9.2        3.2        35
Northrop.................................       5.1        3.0        59
General Dynamics.........................       3.2        2.1        66
Loral....................................       3.3        1.7        52
Grumman..................................       3.2        1.7        53
Litton Industries........................       3.5        1.6        46
E-Systems................................       2.1         .8        38
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               TOTAL SALES OF TOP 10 DEFENSE CONTRACTORS, 1989-94                               
                                              [Dollars in billions]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Company                   1989         1990         1991         1992         1993         1994   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McDonnell Douglas.................      $13.938      $15.497      $18.061      $17.365      $14.487      $13.176
Lockheed..........................        9.891        9.958        9.809       10.100       13.071       13.130
Martin Marietta...................        5.796        6.126        6.075        5.954        9.436        9.874
Raytheon..........................        8.796        9.268        9.274        9.058        9.201       10.166
Northrop..........................        5.248        5.490        5.694        5.550        5.063        6.711
General Dynamics..................       10.043       10.173        8.751        3.472        3.187        3.058
Loral.............................        1.187        1.274        2.127        2.882        3.335        4.009
Grumman...........................        3.559        4.041        4.038        3.504        3.249        (\1\)
Litton............................        5.023        5.156        3.526        3.711        3.474        3.446
E-Systems.........................        1.626        1.801        1.991        2.095        2.097        2.028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Acquired by Northrop.                                                                                       


                             TOTAL EMPLOYEES OF TOP 10 DEFENSE CONTRACTORS, 1989-94                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Company                   1989         1990         1991         1992         1993         1994   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McDonnell Douglas.................      127,900      121,200      109,100       87,400       70,000       65,800
Lockheed..........................       82,500       73,000       72,300       71,700       88,000       82,500
Martin Marietta...................       65,500       62,500       60,500       55,700       92,800       90,300
Raytheon..........................       77,600       76,700       71,600       63,900       63,800       60,200
Northrop..........................       41,000       32,800       36,200       33,600       29,800       42,400
General Dynamics..................      102,200       98,100       80,600       56,800       30,500       24,200
Loral.............................       12,700       26,100       24,400       26,500       24,200       32,400
Grumman...........................       28,900       26,100       23,600       21,200       17,900        (\1\)
Litton............................       50,800       50,600       52,300       49,600       46,400       42,000
E-Systems.........................       17,900       18,400       18,600       18,600       16,700       16,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Acquired by Northrop.                                                                                       

  compensation of top 5 executives at top defense contractors for 1995

       The following information is the fiscal year 1995 reported 
     compensation of the top 5 executives at the defense 
     contractors previously reported in GAO report ``Defense 
     Contractors: Pay, Benefits, and Restructuring During Defense 
     Downsizing''.
       In this paper, total compensation is denied as Salary plus 
     Bonus. Other cash compensation and long-term valuation of 
     stock options is not included.
       The sources of information are: SEC (Edgar) online 
     electronic filings of company Proxy Statements or, Business 
     Week, April 22, 1996.

                      COMPENSATION OF TOP 5 EXECUTIVES AT TOP DEFENSE CONTRACTORS FOR 1995                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Total  
                             Company                               Executive    Salary       Bonus      Salary/ 
                                                                                                         Bonus  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McDonnell Douglas................................................          1                                    
                                                                           2                                    
                                                                           3                                    
                                                                           4                                    
                                                                           5     825,000                        
                                                                                 502,308                        
                                                                                 392,308                        
                                                                                 382,116                        
                                                                                 376,024   1,042,400            
                                                                                             571,000            
                                                                                             524,100            
                                                                                             500,000            
                                                                                             229,600   1,867,400
                                                                                                       1,073,308
                                                                                                         916,408
                                                                                                         882,116
                                                                                                         605,624
Lockheed/Martin..................................................          1                                    
                                                                           2                                    
                                                                           3                                    
                                                                           4                                    
                                                                           5   1,053,462                        
                                                                                 983,846                        
                                                                                 733,077                        
                                                                                 464,615                        
                                                                                 459,904   1,400,000            
                                                                                           1,300,000            
                                                                                             750,000            
                                                                                             443,500            
                                                                                             448,200   2,453,462
                                                                                                       2,283,846
                                                                                                       1,483,077
                                                                                                         908,115
                                                                                                         908,104
General Dynamics.................................................          1                                    
                                                                           2                                    
                                                                           3                                    
                                                                           4                                    
                                                                           5     670,000                        
                                                                                 500,000                        
                                                                                 356,000                        
                                                                                 300,000                        
                                                                                 220,000   1,750,000            
                                                                                             700,000            
                                                                                             500,000            
                                                                                             300,000            
                                                                                             175,000   2,420,000
                                                                                                       1,200,000
                                                                                                         856,000
                                                                                                         600,000
                                                                                                         395,000
Raytheon.........................................................          1                                    
                                                                           2                                    
                                                                           3                                    
                                                                           4                                    
                                                                           5     999,996                        
                                                                                 573,908                        
                                                                                 419,520                        
                                                                                 397,500                        
                                                                                 379,500     870,000            
                                                                                             425,000            
                                                                                             290,000            
                                                                                             240,000            
                                                                                             235,000   1,869,996
                                                                                                         998,908
                                                                                                         709,520
                                                                                                         637,500
                                                                                                         614,500
Northrop/Grumman.................................................          1                                    
                                                                           2                                    
                                                                           3                                    
                                                                           4                                    
                                                                           5     730,000                        
                                                                                 238,688                        
                                                                                 336,667                        
                                                                                 275,000                        
                                                                                 288,333   1,000,000            
                                                                                             428,000            
                                                                                             320,000            
                                                                                             350,000            
                                                                                             330,000   1,730,000
                                                                                                         666,688
                                                                                                         656,667
                                                                                                         625,000
                                                                                                         618,333
Litton...........................................................          1                                    
                                                                           2                                    
                                                                           3                                    
                                                                           4                                    
                                                                           5     445,681                        
                                                                                 337,418                        
                                                                                 277,414                        
                                                                                 326,385                        
                                                                                 252,412     500,000            
                                                                                             340,000            
                                                                                             260,000            
                                                                                             335,000            
                                                                                             205,000     945,681
                                                                                                         677,418
                                                                                                         537,414
                                                                                                         661,385
                                                                                                         457,412
Loral (Being acquired by Lockheed/Martin. Proxy statement not on                                                
 file)...........................................................          1                                    
                                                                           2                                    
                                                                           3                                    
                                                                           4                                    
                                                                           5  ..........  ..........   6,244,000
E-System (Fiscal year 95 info not available. Being acquired by                                                  
 Raytheon).......................................................          1                                    
                                                                           2                                    
                                                                           3                                    
                                                                           4                                    
                                                                           5  ..........  ..........   3,247,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. GRASSLEY. This information is drawn from a recent GAO report 
entitled ``Defense Contractors: Pay, Benefits, and Restructuring During 
Defense Downsizing.''
  Mr. President, the Government should not be in the business of 
deciding how much to pay corporate executives in the defense industry.
  Grassley-Boxer will not get the Government out of that business 
entirely, but it is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. President, earlier in the debate, I said that we need to get 
Government bureaucrats out of the business of deciding how much to pay 
defense executives.
  Grassley-Boxer wouldn't get us out of that business entirely, but it 
would be a step in the right direction.
  Grassley-Boxer would put a governor on executive pay flowing through 
the DOD money pipe.
  The Grassley-Boxer amendment would limit the size of executive 
salaries that could be charged directly to the Government under a 
specific contract.
  Under existing rules, the sky is the limit.
  For the bills coming due today, DOD pay what is fair and reasonable.
  Reasonableness is defined in Federal regulation, FAR 31-205-6.
  The rule is broad and general, as I suspected.
  It gives the bureaucrats wide latitude for maneuver.
  The guidance on how to make the determination is spelled out in 
defense contract audit agency [DCAA] documents.
  DCAA bureaucrats make the final decision.
  The main guide is a market consensus survey to see what everybody 
else is getting paid.
  Above all, the DCAA documents say: ``Be fair--not arbitrary.''
  At the Pentagon, being fair and reasonable usually means the 
taxpayers get shafted.
  Pentagon bureaucrats like to bend over backward to keep the defense 
contractors happy.
  And shoveling money at corporate executives is a great way to do it.
  The Pentagon has proven over and over again that it is incapable of 
keeping lid on executive pay dished out on contracts.
  The pay package coming out of the recent Martin Marietta-Lockeed 
merger is a prime example of what I'm talking about.
  Some 460 executives and directors are slated to receive a total of 
$92.2 million: $8.2 million in cash and stock options is supposed to go 
to Mr. Norman Augustine, chairman of the Martin Marietta Corp. before 
the merger.
  Now this very generous plan is in the process of being blessed by the 
Pentagon bureaucrats.

[[Page S6499]]

  The deal isn't final, yet.
  Since this pay package is based on longstanding contractual 
commitments, some dating back to the early 1980's, United Same has to 
pay.
  The old rules apply.
  The sky is the limit.
  This is what the DCAA bureaucrats have to do to make it happen.
  They take the salary of each corporate executive and break it down 
into many parts and spread it around on thousands of contracts.
  They use a mathematical formula to determine how much to put on each 
contract.
  Mr. President, this is what we must not forget. This is the key 
point:
  There is no ceiling on what DOD can pay the Lockheed-Martin 
executives.
  But from what I am hearing, industry's demand for money is being 
scaled back, somewhat.
  But exactly how much will each executive get under the merger deal?
  I don't think the Pentagon wants us to kown how much the taxpayers 
are paying Mr. Augustine.
  They don't want us to know how much is about to be taken out of the 
pockets of hard-working American taxpayers to bankroll these outrageous 
payments.
  These top industry executives are on the Government payroll, and we 
can't even find out how much they make.
  DCAA says that's sensitive proprietary information.
  If they are on the public payroll, the people have a right to know 
how much each one gets.
  Over a year ago, Senator Boxer and I asked the DOD Inspector General, 
Ms. Eleanor Hill, for this information.
  That was on April 28, 1995.
  We received her response on May 26, 1995.
  But it was unsatisfactory, and we went back to her on June 20 for 
more specific answers to our questions.
  When no satisfactory response was given, the request was renewed 
again on February 16, 1996.
  On June 17, 1996, she finally provided a partial answer to the 
question.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to place our correspondence 
with the DOD IG in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 1995.
     Ms. Eleanor Hill,
     Inspector General, Department of Defense, Army Navy Drive, 
         Arlington, VA.
       Dear Ms. Hill: We are writing to ask you to examine the 
     merger of the Lockheed and Martin Marietta Corporations and 
     to determine its cost to the taxpayers.
       We think this merger needs scrutiny by your office.
       The ``payout benefit plan'' being given to executives and 
     managers at Martin is truly beyond comprehension for most 
     ordinary American citizens. Martin Marietta Chairman Norman 
     Augustine, for example, will receive $8.2 million in cash and 
     stock options as a result of the merger. Other top executives 
     are set to receive huge sums. A total of $92.2 million will 
     be dished out to about 460 managers and executives under 
     various plans. We understand that some of this money will be 
     taken out of the pockets of hard working American taxpayers.
       Since mid-1992, there have been at least nine or ten major 
     mergers or acquisitions in the U.S. defense industry. Under 
     current policy, the amounts charged to current or future 
     defense contracts to cover the ``restructuring'' or merger 
     costs could be building up to unacceptable levels. What are 
     the government's total potential liabilities from all recent 
     mergers? What is the rationale for giving defense companies 
     tax money to cover the costs of their mergers? To us, mergers 
     mean less competition, and less competition usually means 
     higher prices.
       Furthermore, we understand that there is a lack of clear 
     guidance in regulation and law governing mergers as to what 
     is allowable and what is not allowable. This situation could 
     leave the door wide open for waste, abuse and excessive cash 
     payments to industry executives.
       In line with our more general concerns, we have eleven more 
     specific questions on the Martin/Lockheed merger:
       Is there any evidence--based on recent experience--to 
     suggest that the merger will generate real savings to the 
     taxpayers?
       If so, what are the total expected savings to the taxpayers 
     from the merger?
       What is the total projected cost of the merger to the 
     taxpayers, including potential reimbursements for closing 
     unneeded facilities?
       How exactly would tax dollars be used to compensate the two 
     firms for the cost of the merger?
       To what extent are tax dollars being used to support the 
     executive compensation plan resulting from the merger--
     particularly the one contained in a joint proxy statement for 
     the meeting held on March 15, 1995?
       If tax money is used to finance the executive ``payout'' 
     operation, please provide the name of each person receiving 
     tax money and the total amount each person is to receive.
       What is the legal basis for using tax money to make such 
     payments?
       Will projected costs and savings be subjected to adequate 
     audit verification?
       Does the merger plan comply with Section 818 of Public Law 
     103-337 and Section 8117 of Public Law 103-335?
       Does the April 15, 1995 deadline specified in Section 8117 
     mean that the Martin/Lockheed merger is not covered by this 
     provision?
       Have anti-trust issues been adequately addressed?
       Ms. Hill, as far as we are concerned, the salaries paid to 
     top executives in industry should be determined in the market 
     place--not by some obscure act of Congress. But if money is 
     taken out of the pockets of hard working American taxpayers 
     to pay defense industry executive outrageous and unreasonable 
     salaries and bonuses, then we feel like we have an obligation 
     to ask questions.
       We look forward to your independent assessment of the 
     facts.
       Your continued support is always appreciated.
           Sincerely,
     Charles E. Grassley.
     Barbara Boxer.
                                                                    ____

                                                Inspector General,


                                        Department of Defense,

                                      Arlington, VA, May 26, 1995.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: This is in reply to a letter of 
     April 28, 1995, signed jointly by you and Senator Barbara 
     Boxer, that requested our assessment of the facts surrounding 
     the merger of the Lockheed and Martin Marietta Corporations. 
     Our response to each of your concerns and questions is 
     presented in the enclosure.
       Under Section 818, Public Law 337, and implementing 
     regulations, restructuring costs associated with a business 
     combination of defense contractors may not be paid, absent a 
     review of projected costs and savings resulting for the 
     Department from that business combination. We understand that 
     Lockheed Martin Corporation plans to submit a proposal 
     containing such information by late June 1995. That proposal 
     will be audited by the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the 
     results assessed by the Defense Contract Management Command 
     to determine the amount of restructuring costs that properly 
     may be reimbursed by the Government. In the interim, those 
     agencies will review the companies' requests for payments to 
     assure that the Government is not being improperly billed.
       Because the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the General 
     Accounting Officer will be examining the costs associated 
     with the business combination, we do not plan to initiate a 
     review of the matter. We will, however, closely monitor the 
     audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency and actions by the 
     Defense Contract Management Command. Let me assure you that I 
     share your concern that the Lockheed and Martin Marietta 
     business combination not result in the payment of unallowable 
     or excessive costs by the Government.
       A similar reply is being provided to Senator Boxer. If we 
     may be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John 
     R. Crane, Office of Congressional Liaison, at 604-8324.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Eleanor Hill,
     Inspector General.
                                                                    ____


Response to Comments and Questions Regarding the Merger of Lockheed and 
                      Martin Marietta Corportions

       General Comments: A total of $92.2 million will be dished 
     out to about 460 managers and executives under various plans.
       Of the $92.2 million, the Lockheed Martin Corporation 
     believes that $31 million are allowable costs that can be 
     charged to Government contracts. The Defense Contract Audit 
     Agency is currently auditing the $31 million. The audit is 
     scheduled to be completed by June 30, 1995.
       What are the Government's total potential liabilities from 
     all recent mergers?
       The Department of Defense (DoD) may pay allowable and 
     allocable restructuring costs resulting from a business 
     combination provided under that audited proposals indicate 
     that overall savings to the Government will result. As only a 
     few contractors have presented restructuring proposals, the 
     total potential costs and overall savings to the Government 
     cannot be predicted at this time.
       What is the rationale for giving defense companies tax 
     money to cover the costs of their mergers? To us, merger 
     means less competition, and less competition means higher 
     prices.
       The DoD may pay restructuring costs, i.e., the cost to 
     streamline operations, including the elimination of unneeded 
     or redundant facilities and reductions in the work force 
     subsequent to a merger or acquisition, provided they are 
     offset by related savings. We share your concern, however, 
     that competition is being reduced and may lead to higher 
     prices.
       We understand that there is a lack of clear guidelines in 
     regulation and law governing mergers as to what is allowable 
     and what is not allowable.

[[Page S6500]]

       Clearly, those costs, such as reorganization costs, that 
     were previously unallowable are still not allowable. A July 
     1993 policy memorandum on restructuring costs by the Under 
     Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology 
     specifically makes that point. What is unclear is the law and 
     regulations addressing the allowability of restructuring 
     costs that result in increased costs on contracts novated 
     from the selling company to the buyer.
       Under the provisions in the present Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation (FAR), the DoD is under no obligation to pay 
     increased costs of novated contracts even if they are offset 
     by decreases. The July 1993 memorandum was intended to 
     clarify that DoD contracting officers have the latitude to 
     recognize cost increases on novated contracts due to 
     restructuring provided they are offset with related 
     savings.
       The problem we see is that the Congress initially believed 
     that restructuring costs actually represented merger and 
     acquisition costs. Section 818 of Public Law 103-337, 
     therefore, addresses restructuring costs in general rather 
     than those situations specifically related to increased costs 
     on novated contracts.
       Restructuring costs are generally allowable since 
     contractors must have the ability to change and improve their 
     operations. However, the interim regulations written by the 
     DoD in response to the broad requirements of Section 818, 
     require contractors to demonstrate that all restructuring 
     costs, whether related to a merger or acquisition or not, are 
     offset by savings. It is possible that the law and new 
     regulations will make previously allowable costs unallowable. 
     The net effect is that few contractors have come forward with 
     restructuring proposals. We believe, therefore, that the law 
     and the DoD interim regulations should be clarified to 
     address restructuring related to novated contracts only.
       Specific Concerns: Is there any evidence--based on recent 
     experience--to suggest that the merge will generate real 
     savings to the taxpayers?
       Yes. In those very few cases where companies involved in 
     business combination have submitted restructuring proposals, 
     cost reductions are forecast. However, we cannot predict 
     whether anticipated savings are offset by diminished 
     competition.
       If so, what are the total expected savings to the taxpayer 
     from the merger?
       The company has not submitted a proposal of forecasted 
     savings.
       What is the total projected cost of the merger to the 
     taxpayer, including potential reimbursements for closing 
     unneeded facilities?
       Again, that information is not yet available because the 
     company has not submitted a proposal of forecasted savings.
       How exactly would tax dollars be used to compensate the two 
     firms for the cost of the merger?
       As previously stated, the costs of the merger are not 
     compensated. Restructuring costs are reimbursed once the 
     contractor satisfactorily demonstrates to the Contracting 
     Officer at the Defense Contract Management Command and 
     auditor at the Defense Contract Audit Agency that there 
     will be overall savings to the Government. An advance 
     agreement will then be executed specifying the type and 
     limits for restructuring costs that can be charged to 
     contracts each year. That agreement is forwarded to a 
     senior DoD official who certifies that savings will be 
     achieved. The costs are then allocated among all the 
     contractor's business and the Government pays its share.
       To what extent are tax dollars being used to support the 
     executive compensation plan resulting from the merger 
     particularly the one contained in a joint proxy statement for 
     the meeting held on March 15, 1995?
       Tax money, in the form of contract payments, will be used 
     to pay some of the executive compensation costs. The Lockheed 
     Martin Corporation has indicated that the costs will be 
     claimed on its Government contracts based on its past 
     practices and would not exceed the amount DoD would have paid 
     had the merger not occurred. Each of the elements of 
     compensation included in the proxy statement resulting from 
     the merger are being reviewed by the Defense Contract Audit 
     Agency to determine the reasonableness of the compensation 
     paid and to ensure the long-term compensation plans are in 
     accordance with the procurement regulations. The DoD and 
     other Federal agencies pay the allowable portion of executive 
     compensation based on their share of the contractor's 
     business.
       If tax money is used to finance the executive ``payout'' 
     operation, please provide the name of each person receiving 
     tax money and the amount each person is to receive.
       Although the proxy statement does identify some individuals 
     and amounts paid, it does not identify the amount that will 
     be claimed on Government contracts. We will not know all the 
     names of the people receiving the money or the final amount 
     being claimed on Government contracts until the audit by the 
     Defense Contract Audit Agency is complete. The audit is 
     scheduled to be completed by June 30, 1995.
       What is the legal basis for using tax money to make such 
     payments?
       The FAR provides for a fair share of contractor costs, 
     including executive compensation, to be charged to Government 
     contracts. The regulation prohibits paying costs such as 
     ``golden parachutes.'' The audit by the Defense Contract 
     Audit Agency will determine if the amounts claimed by the 
     Lockheed Martin Corporation are allowable.
       Will projected costs and savings be subjected to adequate 
     audit verification?
       The Public Law and procurement regulations require audit 
     verification by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. We plan to 
     monitor the audit.
       Does the merger plan comply with Section 818 of Public Law 
     103-337 and Section 8117 of Public Law 103-335?
       We will not know whether the plan complies with either law 
     until the restructuring proposal is submitted and examined by 
     the contracting officer and auditor.
       Does the April 15, 1995 deadline specified in Section 8117 
     mean that the Martin/Lockheed merger is not covered by this 
     provision?
       The April 15, 1995 deadline applies to payments from funds 
     appropriated in fiscal year 1995 for contracts awarded after 
     April 15, 1995. Section 8117 will limit, to some extent, the 
     DoD reimbursement to the Lockheed Martin Corporation after 
     April 15, 1995. The audit by the Defense Contract Audit 
     Agency will evaluate the compensation costs proposed to be 
     claimed after April 15, 1995, to determine compliance with 
     the public law.
       Have anti-trust issues been adequately addressed?
       Compliance with antitrust laws is the responsibility of the 
     Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. We 
     are not aware of any problems in that area.
                                                                    ____

                                                Inspector General,


                                        Department of Defense,

                                     Arlington, VA, June 14, 1996.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: This is in further response to a 
     letter of April 28, 1995, signed jointly by you and Senator 
     Barbara Boxer that requested information regarding long-term 
     incentive compensation payouts to Martin Marietta executives. 
     These payouts have been claimed for government reimbursement 
     by Lockheed Martin Corporation as a result of the merger of 
     Lockheed and Martin Marietta Corporations.
       Enclosed are aggregate totals of the long-term incentive 
     compensation for four categories of Lockheed Martin 
     executives that are allocable to Government contracts through 
     indirect expense pools, excluding commercial and foreign 
     military sales. It should be noted the long-term incentive 
     compensation was earned over a period of years and paid in 
     1995 after the merger. The categories of former Martin 
     Marietta executives include the top five executives, other 
     top executives, all other executives and the outside Board of 
     Directors.
       The Lockheed Martin Corporation has agreed, on an exception 
     basis, to a release of the aggregate totals without a company 
     proprietary stamp. Lockheed Martin Corporation considers 
     individual names and associated financial information to be 
     confidential proprietary and management sensitive data and 
     has not made an exception as to that information.
       We agree that such information is proprietary and is exempt 
     from release under the Freedom of Information Act, Sections 
     552(b)(4) and 552(b)(6), Title 5, United States Code. It has 
     been designated ``For Official Use Only'' (FOUO), and can be 
     released pursuant to a request from a chairman of a committee 
     or subcommittee with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
       We hope that the above information is helpful to you. If we 
     may be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John 
     R. Crane, Office of Congressional Liaison, at (703) 604-8324.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Eleanor Hill,
     Inspector General.
                                                                    ____


     Martin Marietta long-term incentive compensation allocable to 
          Government contracts through indirect expense pools

           [Excluding commercial and foreign military sales]

Top Executives (5).......................................\1\ $3,552,909
Other Top Executives (14).................................\1\ 2,691,248
Outside Board of Directors (19) (1993 to 1995)............\1\ 2,773,263
Outside Board of Directors (Prior to 1993)..................\1\ 555,297
All Other Executives (450+)...............................\1\ 6,669,283
                                                             __________

        Total............................................\2\ 16,272,000

\1\ These amounts were calculated from information provided by the 
Defense Contract Audit Agency.
\2\ This amount is advisory to the Defense Corporate Executive who is 
responsible for negotiating the final settlement with the Lockheed 
Martin Corporation.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Martin Marietta's top executives are getting paid 
$16,272,000 under the deal.
  This isn't salary. It's a retirement package for the senior 
executives.
  Some call it a ``golden parachute.''
  By any definition, it's a very generous deal.
  DOD pays the top five executives, including Mr. Augustine, 
$3,552,909.
  Now, this isn't Mr. Augustine's salary, for example.
  These are just retirement benefits.
  He gets a lot more, but it comes out of another DOD pool of money.
  How many pools of money does DOD have for corporate pay.
  Mr. President, this tells me we need a cap.

[[Page S6501]]

  I am told that when the idea of a cap was first debated over in the 
Pentagon, a DCAA bureaucrat made this suggestion:
  Why not set the cap at $1 million?
  Mr. President, the Pentagon's weak-kneed attitude on executive pays 
tells me that a cap is mandatory.
  On March 5, 1996, the DOD inspector general, Ms. Eleanor Hill, came 
out in favor of a $250,000 cap.
  I thank her for doing that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to place her letter of 
recommendation in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                Inspector General,


                                        Department of Defense,

                                     Arlington, VA, March 5, 1996.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Recently, the Department provided its 
     views on S. 1102, ``To amend title 10, United States Code, to 
     make reimbursement of defense contractors for costs of 
     excessive amounts of compensation for contractor personnel 
     unallowable under the Department of Defense contracts''. In 
     response to a request from Senator Grassley's office, we 
     offer our views on the legislation for your consideration.
       We support a permanent $250,000 cap on allowable individual 
     compensation costs under DoD contracts. This is not a 
     limitation on total compensation but on the costs charged to 
     the Government. Furthermore, we would also support a 
     limitation on all Government contractors. This additional 
     limitation would prevent DoD contractors who also have 
     contracts with other Government agencies from charging this 
     compensation to non-DoD contracts.
       I hope this information is helpful as the Congress 
     continues consideration of this important issue. If we can be 
     of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me 
     or Mr. John R. Crane, Office of Congressional Liaison, at 
     (703, 604-8324.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Eleanor Hill,
                                                Inspector General.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Unfortunately, Senator Boxer and I think $250,000 cap 
is too high.
  That's what the President of the United States makes in a year.
  Only one person on the Federal payroll should make that much money.
  Mr. President, the appropriators seem to agree with our thinking.
  We can thank the appropriators for their pioneering work in this 
area.
  In 1944, they established the first ``cap'' on the defense 
appropriations bill.
  Under Section 8117 of Public Law 103-335, they placed a $250,000 
salary ``cap'' on fiscal year 1995 contract payments.
  Then, just last year, they lowered the cap to $200,000 on fiscal year 
1996 contract payments.
  That was in Section 8068 of Public Law 104-61--the fiscal year 1996 
defense appropriations bill.
  As I pointed out earlier in the debate, that's not a permanent cap.
  It's a 1-year cap on fiscal year 1996 defense appropriations.
  Mr. President, we need a permanent cap on all Government contracts.
  We shouldn't take money out of the pockets of hard working American 
taxpayers to bank-roll the big executives in defense industry.
  We need to get the taxpayers out of the loop.
  Pay and bonuses for top defense executives should be determined in 
the marketplace.
  Executive wages should be determined by successes and failures by 
profits and losses.
  And not by a bunch of bureaucrats in the Pentagon.
  A $200,000 cap is a good first step in the right direction.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
  Mr. President, throughout this debate, I have repeatedly stressed one 
point:
  We need to get government bureaucrats out of the business of deciding 
how much to pay industry executives.
  Mr. President, there is only one place where those kinds of decisions 
should be made in this country.
  And that's in the marketplace.
  Those decisions should be governed by profits and business successes.
  There is a general consensus for getting the Government out of the 
loop.
  Government bureaucrats are incapable of deciding what an executive 
should earn.
  Mr. President, I have here in my hand an article taken from one of 
the defense trade journals.
  This one is from Defense News, June 3-9, 1996, page 14.
  Now, Defense News is a weekly publication with close ties to defense 
industry.
  The article has this title: ``White House Prepares New Rule on 
Compensation for Executives.''
  The report says the White House procurement czar is about to issue a 
new regulation on how much executive pay can be charged to defense 
contracts.
  ``Industry officials'' are quoted.
  And industry officials are saying what I am saying.
  They say that this decision should be made in the marketplace.
  This is what the reports says, and I quote:
  ``Industry officials say the free market should determine how much 
they [defense executives] are paid, and how much the Government 
reimburses them [for salary].''
  Mr. President, that is exactly what I am saying.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, 
the article.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Defense News, June 3-9, 1996]

      White House Prepares New Rule On Compensation for Executives

                            (By Jeff Erlich)

       Washington.--White House officials will make a decision 
     this month on what portion of defense executives' salaries 
     the government will reimburse.
       The issue of how much corporate executives are paid has 
     taken on populist overtones as salaries continue to rise 
     while workers are laid off, a senior government official 
     said.
       ``Some contractors seem to have tunnel vision,'' the 
     official said. ``There is a larger debate in society about 
     executive compensation. This is not just about defense 
     contracting.''
       Industry officials, however, say the free market should 
     determine how much they are paid, and how much the government 
     reimburses them.
       ``If you find the right guy, the leverage of his thought 
     process is way beyond the value you would attribute to him as 
     one man,'' Vance Coffman, chief operating officer of Lockheed 
     Martin Corp., Bethesda, Md., said in a May 29 interview.
       Steve Kelman, White House director of federal procurement 
     policy, is due to issue the pay rule this month. He said May 
     28 that he has not yet made a decision.
       Kelman will weight options that include a cap on how much 
     the Pentagon can reimburse executives for their salaries.
       Congress has a $200,000 cap this year, pending the new 
     policy. Or Kelman could eliminate any caps and let the DoD's 
     cost-accounting principles govern levels of reimbursement.
       He also will address other forms of pay, such as bonuses, 
     deferred salary, stock options and other compensation, often 
     earned during corporate restructuring.
       These issues came under congressional scrutiny with the 
     merger of Lockheed and Martin Marietta corporations. Lockheed 
     Martin will get $16.5 million from the government in extra 
     compensation resulting from the restructuring.
       ``During the past eight years, 2.2 million Americans have 
     lost their defense-related jobs. At precisely the same time, 
     the top CEOs among defense contractors have been taking home 
     huge salaries and stock payouts paid in no small part by U.S. 
     taxpayers,'' Reps. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., Bernard Sanders, I-
     Vt., and Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., wrote May 9 to Defense 
     Secretary William Perry.
       Bert Concklin, president of the Professional Services 
     Council, a Vienna, Va.-based consultants association, said 
     the policy should address only high levels of compensation 
     resulting from mergers, buyouts or other corporate 
     restructuring, while leaving alone normal bonuses and 
     salaries.
       ``It should focus on what has apparently gotten the 
     attention of the critics,'' Concklin said May 28.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Grassley-Boxer doesn't get the Government out of the 
loop completely.
  It would leave bureaucrats with authority to manipulate just a small 
piece of the compensation pie.
  The bulk of executive compensation would be decided by industry in 
the marketplace where it belongs.
  In time, I hope to see a complete end to this practice.
  It would cease to be an allowable expense under defense contracts.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4075) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S6502]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4076

   (Purpose: To amend the reporting requirement under demonstration 
   project for purchase of fire, security, police, public works, and 
            utility services from local government agencies)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Boxer, I offer an 
amendment that would extend the reporting date on the demonstration 
project for an additional 2 years. The demonstration involves purchase 
of services from municipalities.
  I believe this amendment has also been cleared by the Republican side 
of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia (Mr. Nunn), for Mrs. Boxer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4076.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . REPORTING REQUIREMENT UNDER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 
                   FOR PURCHASE OF FIRE, SECURITY, POLICE, PUBLIC 
                   WORKS, AND UTILITY SERVICES FROM LOCAL 
                   GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.

       Section 816(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2820) is 
     amended by striking out ``1996'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``1998''.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, this has been cleared on this side.
  I urge its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4076) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4077

(Purpose: To authorize agreements with Indian tribes for services under 
             the Defense Environmental Restoration Program)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, I offer 
an amendment that modifies section 2701 of title X, United States Code, 
that specifically authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into 
agreements to obtain the reimbursable services of any Indian tribe to 
assist the Secretary in carrying out the Department of Defense 
environmental restoration activities. Section 2701 currently authorizes 
the Secretary to enter into such agreements with any other Federal 
agency or State or local government agency. The amendment would make it 
clear that an Indian tribe may be party to such an agreement.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], for McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4077.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title III, add the following:

     SEC.   . AUTHORITY FOR AGREEMENTS WITH INDIAN TRIBES FOR 
                   SERVICES UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 2701(d) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking out 
     ``, or with any State or local government agency,'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``, with any State or local 
     government agency, or with any Indian tribe,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `Indian 
     tribe' has the meaning given such term in section 101(36) of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(36)).''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment to S. 1745, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, that would 
modify section 2701 of title 10, United States Code, to specifically 
authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into agreements to obtain 
the reimbursable services of any Indian tribe to assist the Secretary 
in carrying out Department of Defense environmental restoration 
activities. Section 2701 currently authorizes the Secretary to enter 
into such agreements ``* * * with any other Federal agency, or with any 
State or local government agency. * * *''
  Participation in agreements under section 2701 became an issue when 
the Department of Defense informed the Suquamish Indian tribe that the 
Department did not have the legal authority to enter into such 
agreements with Indian tribes. The amendment would expressly authorize 
the Department to enter into agreements with Indian tribes for 
reimbursable services related to environmental restoration.
  Mr. President, I urge that the Senate adopt this amendment.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4077) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. I move 
to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4078

(Purpose: To revise the description of a category of expenses for which 
          humanitarian and civic assistance funds may be used)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask it 
be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4078.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In section 1006, strike out the last three lines and insert 
     in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(B) The cost of any equipment, services, or supplies 
     acquired for the purpose of carrying out or supporting 
     activities described in such subsection (e)(5), including any 
     nonlethal, individual or small-team landmine cleaning 
     equipment or supplies that are to be transferred or otherwise 
     furnished to a foreign country in furtherance of the 
     provision of assistance under this section.
       ``(C) The cost of any equipment, services, or supplies 
     provided pursuant to (B) may not exceed $5 million each 
     year.''.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment amends existing law to enable 
the Department of Defense in the course of providing education, 
training and technical assistance to foreign nations personnel on 
landmine clearance to also acquire equipment, services or supplies and 
to transfer nonlethal individual small team landmine clearing equipment 
or supplies to such foreign country. A ceiling of $5 million would be 
set for the cost of such services, equipment and supplies.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, this has been cleared on this side, 
and I urge its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4078) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4079

    (Purpose: To revise the eligibility requirements for grants and 
  contracts under the University Research Initiative Support Program)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on 
behalf of myself which would clarify the eligibility criteria for the 
University Research Initiative Support Program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4079.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title II add the following:

     SEC. 243. AMENDMENT TO UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVE SUPPORT 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 802(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 1701; 10 
     U.S.C. 2358 note) is amended by striking out ``fiscal years 
     before the fiscal year in which the institution submits a 
     proposal'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``most recent fiscal 
     years for which complete statistics are available when 
     proposals are requested''.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I am proposing an amendment to the 
Defense Authorization bill in support of the University Research 
Initiative Support Program [URISP]. This amendment will greatly improve 
and make more efficient the process for calculating the eligibility of 
colleges and universities around the country to receive grants and 
contracts for research by clarifying that such institutions may not 
have received more than $2 million 

[[Page S6503]]

in funding from the Department of Defense in the two most recent fiscal 
years for which complete statistics are available when proposals are 
requested.
  The University Research Initiative Support Program [URISP] was 
initiated by the Senate Armed Services Committee in section 802 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994. The purpose of 
the program was to provide support for individual universities which 
had not been participants in Department of Defense research programs. 
The URISP program is only open to universities that have received less 
than $2 million in DOD R&D funds in the two fiscal years preceding the 
submission of proposals for participation by the university. The 
program was intended to be a complement to the similar Defense Program 
to Stimulate Competitive Research [DEPSCoR] program in which university 
eligibility is determined solely by location in a designated DEPSCoR 
state and not by the amount of research funding an individual 
institution may have received in the past. Section 802 directs that all 
contracts and grants be awarded under the URISP program using merit-
based, competitive procedures.

  On February 13, 1996, the Department of Defense announced that it 
will award $30 million under the URISP program over the next five 
years. The funding is intended to allow for the building of 
infrastructure to allow the universities to compete for DOD research 
contracts. The average grant is $2 million, and the plan is to fund the 
first three years at $500,000 each and to provide $300,000 and $200,000 
in the fourth and fifth year, respectively.
  Unfortunately, release of full funding for the first installment has 
been reduced by the OSD comptroller to $140,000 because the eligibility 
determinations required under the law are delaying program 
implementation. Information for the two most recent fiscal years has 
not been available because of the time lag in compiling such recent 
data.
  The amendment I propose would have the effect of allowing the program 
to go forward by authorizing the use of data from the two most recent 
fiscal years for which it is available at the time the university made 
its proposal. This change will allow the effective implementation of a 
program that originated in the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  The Department of Defense has requested that this change be made and 
the House has included this provision in their bill as section 244. In 
the spirit of competition, passage of this amendment would allow 
universities which previously lacked the ability to vie for government 
research dollars to compete on a more equal footing thereby ensuring 
that healthy competition remains the standard bearer in the research 
and development community.
  Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4079) was agreed.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4080

 (Purpose: To strike section 1008, relating to the prohibition on the 
use of funds for Office of Naval Intelligence representation or related 
                              activities)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lott, I offer an 
amendment to strike section 1008 of the bill relating to the Office of 
Naval Intelligence. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the 
other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], for Mr. Lott, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4080.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike out section 1008, relating to the prohibition on the 
     use of funds for Office of Naval Intelligence representation 
     or related activities.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this amendment strikes section 1008 of the 
bill as reported out of committee. I appreciate the support of the 
members of the committee as well as the full Senate for this amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4080) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4081

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey certain real 
                property located at Fort Sill, Oklahoma)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Inhofe and 
Nickles, I offer an amendment which would transfer 400 acres located at 
Fort Sill, OK, to the Department of Veterans Affairs for use as a 
national cemetery. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the 
other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], for Mr. Nickles, 
     for himself and Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4081.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Insert the following in the appropriate place:

     SEC.   . TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION AND LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT 
                   SILL, OKLAHOMA.

       (a) Transfer of Land for National Cemetery.--
       (1) Transfer authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may 
     transfer, without reimbursement, to the administrative 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs a parcel of 
     real property (including any improvements thereon) consisting 
     of approximately 400 acres and comprising a portion of Fort 
     Sill, Oklahoma.
       (2) Use of land.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     use the real property transferred under paragraph (1) as a 
     national cemetery under chapter 24 of title 38, United States 
     Code.
       (3) Return of unused land.--If the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs determines that any portion of the real property 
     transferred under paragraph (1) is not needed for use as a 
     national cemetery, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     return such portion to the administrative jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary of the Army.
       (b) Legal Description.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be transferred or 
     conveyed under this section shall be determined by surveys 
     that are satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army. The cost 
     of such surveys shall be borne by the recipient of the real 
     property.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Thurmond and 
Nunn for their assistance in getting this provision included in the 
Defense authorization bill. I also want to thank the staff of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee for their patience and understanding in 
working with my staff on this issue.
  This land transfer will put Oklahoma well on its way to getting a new 
national veterans cemetery. This process was started nearly ten years 
ago, but for one reason or another has been slow in moving forward. The 
transfer will conclude years of searching for a location by utilizing 
this land now a part of Ft. Sill.
  Getting property upon which to locate a veterans cemetery has been a 
major struggle, and, obviously, this land transfer solves that problem. 
I am very pleased that this provision will be in the bill for the 
veterans of Oklahoma who wondered if this day would ever come.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Thurmond and Nunn 
for agreeing to include this provision in the Defense authorization 
bill. I also want to thank the staff of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee for their patience and understanding in working with Senator 
Nickles' and my staff on this issue.
  This land transfer will allow Oklahoma to move forward in its attempt 
to establish a new national veterans' cemetery. This process has taken 
almost a decade to get to this point, but I believe we now have a 
satisfactory solution in using available land at Fort Sill, in Lawton, 
OK.
  Finding property for this veterans' cemetery has been a major 
struggle, and, obviously, this land transfer will mean a great deal to 
many Oklahoman veterans. I am pleased to be a part of this solution, 
and I thank the other Senators who have helped to make this happen.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge adoption of the amendment.

[[Page S6504]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4081) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4082

    (Purpose: To revise the provision relating to the environmental 
                         restoration accounts)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, I offer 
an amendment that would remove language that refers to the treatment of 
appropriations and focuses on purposes for which authorized funds may 
be obligated under the four environmental restoration accounts for the 
military departments.
  The amendment also eliminates all references to transfer accounts. 
The deletion of the term ``transfer accounts'' ensures that the four 
environmental restoration accounts are treated as separate line items 
for authorization of appropriations not susceptible to transfer funds 
between the military departments.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4082.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 81, strike out line 18 and all that follows through 
     page 86, line 2, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 341. ESTABLISHMENT OF SEPARATE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION 
                   ACCOUNTS FOR EACH MILITARY DEPARTMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--(1) Section 2703 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2703. Environmental restoration accounts

       ``(a) Establishment of Accounts.--There are hereby 
     established in the Department of Defense the following 
     accounts:
       ``(1) An account to be known as the `Defense Environmental 
     Restoration Account'.
       ``(2) An account to be known as the `Army Environmental 
     Restoration Account'.
       ``(3) An account to be known as the `Navy Environmental 
     Restoration Account'.
       ``(4) An account to be known as the `Air Force 
     Environmental Restoration Account'.
       ``(b) Obligation of Authorized Amounts.--Funds authorized 
     for deposit in an account under subsection (a) may be 
     obligated or expended from the account only in order to carry 
     out the environmental restoration functions of the Secretary 
     of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments 
     under this chapter and under any other provision of law. 
     Funds so authorized shall remain available until expended.
       ``(c) Budget Reports.--In proposing the budget for any 
     fiscal year pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, the 
     President shall set forth separately the amounts requested 
     for environmental restoration programs of the Department of 
     Defense and of each of the military departments under this 
     chapter and under any other Act.
       ``(d) Amounts Recovered.--The following amounts shall be 
     credited to the appropriate environmental restoration 
     account:
       ``(1) Amounts recovered under CERCLA for response actions.
       ``(2) Any other amounts recovered from a contractor, 
     insurer, surety, or other person to reimburse the Department 
     of Defense or a military department for any expenditure for 
     environmental response activities.
       ``(e) Payments of Fines and Penalties.--None of the funds 
     appropriated to the Defense Environmental Restoration Account 
     for fiscal years 1995 through 1999, or to any environmental 
     restoration account of a military department for fiscal years 
     1997 through 1999, may be used for the payment of a fine or 
     penalty (including any supplemental environmental project 
     carried out as part of such penalty) imposed against the 
     Department of Defense or a military department unless the act 
     or omission for which the fine or penalty is imposed arises 
     out of an activity funded by the environmental restoration 
     account concerned and the payment of the fine or penalty has 
     been specifically authorized by law.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 160 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out 
     the item relating to section 2703 and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following item:

``2703. Environmental restoration accounts.''.

       (b) References.--Any reference to the Defense Environmental 
     Restoration Account in any Federal law, Executive Order, 
     regulation, delegation of authority, or document of or 
     pertaining to the Department of Defense shall be deemed to 
     refer to the appropriate environmental restoration account 
     established under section 2703(a)(1) of title 10, United 
     States Code (as amended by subsection (a)(1)).
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2705(g)(1) of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking out ``the Defense 
     Environmental Restoration Account'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``the environmental restoration account concerned''.
       (d) Treatment of Unobligated Balances.--Any unobligated 
     balances that remain in the Defense Environmental Restoration 
     Account under section 2703(a) of title 10, United States 
     Code, as of the effective date specified in subsection (e) 
     shall be transferred on such date to the Defense 
     Environmental Restoration Account established under section 
     2703(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code (as amended by 
     subsection (a)(1)).
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the later of--
       (1) October 1, 1996; or
       (2) the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. NUNN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4082) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, as it was noted in Senate Report No. 
104-267 produced by the Committee on Armed Services, it was not 
possible to include CBO cost estimates when the report was created 
because the cost estimates were not available. I now have CBO's 
figures.
  I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 1996.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the attached cost estimate for S. 1745, the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 as ordered 
     reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services on May 2, 
     1996.
       The bill would affect direct spending, and thus would be 
     subject to pay-as-you-go procedures under section 252 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       If you wish, we would be pleased to provide further details 
     on the estimate.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
                                                         Director.
       Attachment.


               congressional budget office cost estimate

       1. Bill number: S. 1745.
       2. Bill title: National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1997.
       3. Bill Status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
     on Armed Services on May 2, 1996.
       4. Bill purpose: This bill would authorize appropriations 
     for 1997 for the military functions of the Department of 
     Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy (DoE). This bill 
     also would prescribe personnel strengths for each active duty 
     and selected reserve component.
       5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Table 1 
     summarizes the budgetary effects of the bill. It shows the 
     effects of the bill on direct spending and asset sales and on 
     authorizations of appropriations for 1997. Assuming 
     appropriation of the amounts authorized, the bill would 
     increase funding for discretionary programs in 1997 by $3.0 
     billion over the 1996 appropriated level, although outlays 
     would decline by $0.1 billion.
       6. Basis of estimate: The estimate assumes that the bill 
     will be enacted by October 1, 1996, and that the amounts 
     authorized will be appropriated for 1997. Outlays are 
     estimated according to historical spending patterns.
     Direct spending and asset sales
       The bill contains several provisions that would affect 
     direct spending or asset sales (see Table 2). The provisions 
     involve the sale of material in the National Defense 
     Stockpile, the sale of various naval vessels, civilian and 
     military retirement benefits, annuities for military 
     surviving spouses, the use of proceeds from certain property 
     sales, and other matters with less significant costs.
       Under the 1996 budget resolution, proceeds from asset sales 
     are counted in the budget totals for purposes of 
     Congressional scoring. Under the Balanced Budget Act, 
     however, proceeds from asset sales are not counted in 
     determining compliance with the discretionary spending limits 
     or pay-as-you-go requirement.
       Stockpile Sales. The bill would require the Administration 
     to sell certain materials in the National Defense Stockpile 
     to raise receipts by $338 million during the five-year period 
     ending on September 30, 2001, and $649 million during the 
     seven-year period ending on September 30, 2003. Table 2 shows 
     CBO's estimates of sales through 2002.

[[Page S6505]]



 TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                                                        [By fiscal years, in millions of dollars]                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1996         1997         1998         1999         2000         2001         2002   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             DIRECT SPENDING AND ASSET SALES                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
Direct spending:.............................................                                                                                           
    Estimated budget authority...............................            0           12           20           75           78           82           89
    Estimated outlays........................................            0           -1           13           72           77           82           89
Assets Sales:\1\                                                                                                                                        
    Estimate budget authority................................            0         -142          -59          -64          -70          -75         -145
    Estimated outlays........................................            0         -142          -59          -64          -70          -75         -145
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                        SPENDING SUBECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTIONS                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
Spending under current law:                                                                                                                             
    Budget authority\2\......................................      265,023            0            0            0            0            0            0
    Estimated outlays........................................      264,311       91,156       36,485       17,138        7,362        3,275          913
Proposed changes:                                                                                                                                       
    Estimated authorization level............................            0      268,069            0            0            0            0            0
    Estimated outlays........................................            0      173,007       55,280       21,615        9,373        3,938        2,084
Spending under the bill:                                                                                                                                
    Estimated authorizaton level \2\.........................      265,023      268,069            0            0            0            0            0
    Estimated outlays........................................      264,311      264,163       91,765       38,753       16,735        7,213        2,997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the 1996 budget resolution, proceeds from asset sales are counted in the budget totals for purposes of Congressinal scoring. Under the        
  Balanced Budget Act, however, proceeds from asset sales are not counted in determining compliance with the discretionary spending limits or pay-as-you-
  go requirement.                                                                                                                                       
\2\ The 1996 figure is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by this bill.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
Note.--Costs of the bill would fall under budget function 050, National Defense, except for certain other items as noted.                               

       The receipts would come from selling aluminum, cobalt, 
     columbium ferro, germanium metal, indium, palladium, 
     platinum, rubber, and tantalum. Current law does not permit 
     DoD to sell any of these materials except cobalt, but CBO 
     expects that all cobalt now authorized for sale will be sold 
     during 1996.
       To determine if the receipt targets could be achieved, CBO 
     reviewed both past sales and historical trends in prices for 
     the different materials. Using both historical average prices 
     and quantities that would probably not cause any significant 
     disruption in world markets, CBO found the receipt levels to 
     be achievable.
       Transfer of Naval Vessels. The bill would authorize the 
     Secretary of the Navy to sell eight naval vessels to certain 
     foreign countries and otherwise dispose of two other vessels. 
     The Navy estimates the sale would generate $72 million in 
     offsetting receipts in 1997.
       Civilian Retirement Annuities. Section 1121 would index the 
     average pay used to calculate deferred retirement benefits 
     for certain DoD civilian employees. CBO estimates that this 
     proposal would reduce spending by $40 million in fiscal year 
     1997, $98 million in 1998, $57 million in 1999, $57 million 
     in 2000, $56 million in 2001, and $54 million in 2002.
       Section 1121 would apply, at the discretion of DoD, to 
     employees at military bases sold to private contractors. To 
     qualify for benefits under this proposal, the DoD employee 
     must continue working in the same job after the base is sold 
     to a private company. Further, the employee must be enrolled 
     in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability System and not 
     be eligible for retirement benefits. Based on the Base 
     Realignment and Closure Commission reports and data from DoD, 
     CBO assumes that about 1,200 people in 1997 and 2,000 in 1998 
     would take advantage of this proposal.
       Under the bill, qualified workers could count their years 
     of service under the private contractor toward meeting the 
     age and service requirements for regular retirement. Further, 
     the high-3 average federal salary used to calculate benefits 
     would be indexed to federal pay raises during the time 
     between the end of federal service and retirement. Based on 
     data from DoD, CBO estimates that only about 5 percent of 
     those affected would begin receiving benefits in the six-year 
     projection period. Direct spending outlays are estimated to 
     be less than $500,000 in fiscal year 1997, $2 million in 
     1998, $3 million in 1999, $3 million in 2000, $4 million in 
     2001, and $6 million in 2002. The bulk of the costs would 
     begin to be realized about 15 years from enactment.
       Over the six-year projection period, the increased costs of 
     the annuities would be more than offset by forgone refunds of 
     employee contributions. Based on rates of withdrawal from the 
     Office of Personnel Management, CBO assumes that under 
     current law about 60 percent of affected employees would have 
     withdrawn their retirement contributions, when they 
     lost their federal jobs to a private contractor. Since 
     this proposal would greatly increase the value of the 
     employee's retirement benefits, most of the affected 
     workers would not withdraw their contributions and instead 
     would remain eligible for retirement benefits. Given an 
     average refund of about $34,000, the reduction in outlays 
     from fewer refunds is estimated to be $20 million in 
     fiscal year 1997 and about $40 million in 1998.
       Section 1121 would also require that DOD amortize in 10 
     equal payments any increase in the unfunded liability of the 
     Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund that is 
     attributable to the enhanced benefits of this proposal. DOD 
     would pay an estimated $20 million a year for 10 years 
     beginning in fiscal year 1997 and another $40 million a year 
     for 10 years beginning in 1998. The receipt of these payments 
     is not included in the cost estimate because they fund 
     additional benefits that generally lie beyond the horizon of 
     the estimate.
       Annuities for Certain Military Surviving Spouses. Section 
     634 would provide annuities to the surviving spouses of two 
     groups of former servicemembers. The first group would 
     consist of military retirees who died before March 21, 1974. 
     The second group would consist of reservists who died between 
     September 21, 1972 and October 1, 1978, and who were entitled 
     to retired pay at the time of their death except that they 
     were under the age of 60. Based on information from DOD, CBO 
     estimates that this provision would ultimately extend 
     benefits to about 25,000 surviving spouses. We assume, 
     however, that only half of those eligible spouses would learn 
     of this provision and receive benefits in 1997, when costs 
     are estimated to total about $12 million. In 2002, we assume 
     all 25,000 will be receiving the benefits. CBO estimates that 
     payments will eventually total about $57 million a year.
       Use of Base Closure Proceeds. Section 2812 would allow DOD 
     to use certain proceeds from the sale of base closure 
     property for the construction of commissaries or facilities 
     related to morale, recreation, or welfare activities. This 
     provision would affect proceeds from the sale of any property 
     that was acquired or constructed with commissary funds or 
     nonappropriated funds and that is sold due to the base 
     closure process. Under current law, these proceeds cannot be 
     used unless appropriated by the Congress. By 2002, CBO 
     estimates that spending under this section would total about 
     $15 million annually.
       Retirement of Certain Officers. Section 532 would allow no 
     more than 25 retired officers in each military department to 
     be recalled to active duty. Under current law, the Army and 
     Navy have recalled about 100 retired officers to active duty. 
     This provision would force the retirement of about 150 people 
     and would result in increased retirements costs of about $5 
     million annually.

                              TABLE 2.--DIRECT SPENDING AND ASSET SALES IN S. 1745                              
                                    [By fiscal years, in millions of dollars]                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 DIRECT SPENDING                                                
                                                                                                                
Civilian Retirement......................................      -20      -38        3        3        4         6
Surviving Spouses........................................       12       38       52       54       56        57
Base Closure Proceeds....................................        2        8       12       14       15        15
Retirement of Certain Officers...........................        5        5        5        5        5         6
Bonuses Repayments.......................................        0        0    (\1\)        1        2         5
Other Direct Spending....................................    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)     (\1\)
                                                          ----------                                            
Total Direct Spending....................................       -1       13       72       77       82        89
                                                          ==========                                            
                                                   ASSET SALES                                                  
                                                                                                                
Stockpile Sales..........................................      -70      -59      -64      -70      -75      -145
Sale of Naval Vessels....................................      -72        0        0        0        0         0

[[Page S6506]]

                                                                                                                
      Total Asset Sales..................................     -142      -59      -64      -70      -75      -145
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                         


       Repayment of Separation Bonuses. Under current law, some 
     servicemembers who leave the military and receive certain 
     separation bonus payments must repay those amounts if they 
     later receive veterans' disability compensation or military 
     retirement. For these individuals retirement and compensation 
     payments are withheld until the full amount of the bonus 
     payment has been recouped. This provision would change the 
     amount that must be repaid from 100 percent of the bonus 
     payment to the net amount of the payment following federal 
     income tax withholding, for separations from service 
     occurring in 1997 or later. Thus, beneficiaries would begin 
     receiving veterans compensation or retired pay sooner than 
     under current law.
       Additional veteran's compensation payments would begin in 
     1999. Near term costs would be small--less than $500,000 in 
     1999 and $15 million in 2002. Total costs for individual 
     separating over the next six years would eventually amount to 
     about $70 million, but this total amount would not be reached 
     for 10 to 15 years.
       No data are kept on the number of individuals who receive 
     separation payments and subsequently rejoin the military and 
     qualify for retired pay. Such individual would most likely 
     join and retire from the Selected Reserves. Reserve retirees 
     do not receive retired pay until they reach age 62---more 
     than 25 years after most would have received the initial 
     separation payment. Any costs associated with this part of 
     the provision would be small and would not appear for many 
     years.
       Miscellaneous Military Retirement Provisions. Four other 
     provisions would change current law governing the military 
     retired program including survivor benefits. None of these 
     provisions would have significant costs because relatively 
     few people would be affected or changes in benefit levels 
     would be relatively small:
       Section 515 would authorize reservists to receive 
     disability retirement if they are injured during overnight 
     stays associated with inactive-duty training.
       Section 516 would allow certain members of the reserves to 
     receive retirement-related credit if they participate in 
     select educational programs and work in a specialty that is 
     critically needed in wartime.
       Section 531 would allow service members who are retired due 
     to physical disabilities to receive retired pay based on the 
     grade to which they would have been promoted had it not been 
     for the onset of the physical disability.
       Section 533 would authorize disability coverage for certain 
     officers who are injured while attending educational programs 
     on leave without pay.
       Other provisions. The bill would give the President the 
     authority to award the Medal of Honor to seven individuals. 
     This award is accompanied by monthly payment of $400, but the 
     annual cost of all seven recipients would amount to less than 
     $500,000 per year.
       The bill would allow the Secretary of Transportation to 
     stop trying to collect amounts that Coast Guard personnel 
     owed the government before they died on active duty. The 
     forgone receipts would be considered direct spending. Both 
     the number of people and the amount of collections would be 
     small, however, and the cost of this provision would be less 
     than $500,000 annually.
       The bill also contains a provision that would allow the 
     government to recover the costs of compensation for certain 
     military servicemembers who are unable to perform their 
     military duties. If a third party is found liable for the 
     circumstances under which the servicemember becomes 
     incapacitated, the government would be able to collect and 
     spend the money. Collections would increase but expenditures 
     would rise by the same amount, so there would be no net 
     budgetary impact.
     Authorizations of appropriations
       The bill authorizes specific appropriations of $198 billion 
     for 1997 for operation and maintenance, procurement, 
     research, development, test and evaluation, nuclear weapons 
     programs, and other DoD program. These authorizations fall 
     under National Defense, budget function 050.
       In addition, the bill would authorize specific 
     appropriations for other budget functions: $150 million for 
     the Naval Petroleum Reserve (function 270), $57 million for 
     the Armed Forces Retirement Home (function 700).
       The bill also contains both specific and implicit 
     authorizations of appropriations for other military programs, 
     primarily for military personnel costs, some of which extend 
     beyond 1997. Table 3 contains estimates for the amounts 
     authorized and the related outlays. The following sections 
     describe the estimated authorizations shown in Table 3 and 
     provide information about CBO's cost estimates.
       Endstrength. The bill would authorize active and reserve 
     component endstrengths for 1997 at a cost of $68 billion. 
     Endstrengths specifically stated in the bill for active-duty 
     personnel would total about 1,457,500--about 500 more than in 
     the Administration's request but about 24,200 below the level 
     estimated for 1996. DoD reserve endstrengths would be 
     authorized at about 901,900--about 900 more than in the 
     Administration's request but about 28,900 less than the 
     estimated 1996 level.
       Also, the bill would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in 
     1997 for the Coast Guard Reserve, which is the same as the 
     1996 level and the Administration's request; this 
     authorization would cost about $66 million and would fall 
     under budget function 400, Transportation.
       Compensation and Benefits. The bill contains several 
     provisions that would affect military compensation and 
     benefits.
       Pay Raises and Quarters Allowances. The bill would 
     authorize a 3.0 percent increase in the rates of basic pay 
     and the basic allowance for subsistence for military 
     personnel, at a cost of $1.2 billion. The same section would 
     also call for the basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) to 
     increase by 4.0 percent. Under current law BAQ increases 
     according to the military pay raise; consequently, the 3.0 
     percent pay raise authorized in this bill would raise BAQ by 
     $109 million. The provision that raises BAQ by the additional 
     1.0 percent would cost another $36 million. Thus, BAQ would 
     increase by $145 million compared to 1996 rates.
       Expiring Authorities. Several sections would extend for one 
     year certain payment authorities that are scheduled to expire 
     at the end of 1997. In some cases, renewing authorities for 
     one year results in costs over several years because payments 
     are made in installments. Payment authorities for enlistment 
     and reenlistment bonuses for active duty personnel would cost 
     $148 million in 1998. The cost of extensions of special 
     payments for aviators and nuclear-qualified personnel would 
     total $49 million in 1998. Extension of various bonus 
     programs for Selected Reserve personnel would increase costs 
     by $33 million in 1998. Finally, authorities to make special 
     payments to nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and 
     nurse anesthetists would increase authorizations by $12 
     million in 1998.
       Housing Allowance During Duty at Sea. The bill would 
     authorize payment of housing allowances to certain personnel 
     in pay grade E-5 who are assigned to shipboard sea duty. This 
     change would provide about 7,000 personnel with housing 
     allowances averaging $6,000 annually, for a total yearly cost 
     of about $40 million.
       Grade Structure. The bill would authorize the number of 
     active duty officers who can serve in certain pay grades in 
     each of the military services. This change would not increase 
     overall endstrength, but it would result in increased 
     promotions. The provision has a cost, about $35 million 
     annually, because personnel serving in higher grades are paid 
     more. Because the provision does not take affect until 
     September 1, 1997, the cost is only $3 million in 1997.
       Special Pay for Dentists. In 1996, DoD will pay about $40 
     million in incentive payments to dentists serving as officers 
     in the military services. This bill would increase these 
     incentives at a cost of $8 million a year.
       Moving costs. The bill would allow DoD to pay storage costs 
     for motor vehicles when members cannot take the vehicle along 
     on a move and to reimburse members for certain expenses when 
     they pick up a vehicle at a port following government 
     shipment. Together, these two provisions would cost $4 
     million in 1997.
       Family separation allowance. Current law authorizes payment 
     of a family separation allowance (FSA) to servicemembers 
     whose military duties prevent them from being able to live 
     with their families. However, no allowance is paid when both 
     spouses are servicemembers and there are not other 
     dependents. This provision would pay FSA to military couples 
     who are otherwise eligible for payments at a cost of $2 
     million annually.
       Adoption expenses. Under current law, DOD reimburses 
     members of the military services for expenses incurred when 
     they adopt children through state, local, or non-profit 
     adoption agencies. The bill would extend this reimbursement 
     to adoptions arranged privately under court supervision. 
     Based on national adoption statistics, CBO estimates that 
     this change would increase the number of adoptions eligible 
     for reimbursement by about 50 percent, at an annual cost of 
     $1 million.
       Military Personnel Authorization. The bill explicitly 
     authorizes appropriations for military personnel of $69,878 
     million in 1997. Because the estimated cost of other sections 
     of the bill exceed this amount, this section has the effect 
     of reducing costs by $36 million.
       Military Health Care Programs. The bill contains two 
     provisions that affect military health care and that have 
     significant budgetary impacts.
       Dental Insurance. The bill would require the Secretary of 
     Defense to establish a dental insurance program for military 
     retirees

[[Page S6507]]

     and their dependents. DOD could bear part of the cost of the 
     premium payments. Assuming premium sharing at the same level 
     as in similar programs currently available to active duty 
     dependents and members of the Selected Reserve, this 
     provision would cost about $300 million annually.
       Composite Health Care System (CHCS). The bill would direct 
     the Secretary of Defense to make certain changes to the 
     composite Health Care System (CHCS), an automated medical 
     information system used by DOD. These changes would 
     standardize CHCS so that the information systems of various 
     military treatment facilities and private contractors could 
     exchange data about health care beneficiaries. No information 
     is available from DOD about the potential costs of the 
     changes, and CBO is unable to estimate the cost of this 
     provision.
       Civilian Retirement Annuities. Section 1121, which would 
     index the average pay used to calculate deferred retirement 
     benefits for certain DOD civilian employees, also results in 
     costs that would be funded by appropriations. The 10-year 
     amortization payments made by the DOD to the civilian 
     retirement fund would total an estimated $10 million in 1997 
     and $60 million a year for each of the following years in the 
     projection period. These costs are offset by savings of about 
     $30 million in fiscal year 1997 and $50 million in 1998 
     attributable to the provision that precludes severance 
     payment to any individual taking advantage of benefits under 
     this section.
       Public Health Service. The bill would authorize payments to 
     Public Health Service officers of certain special pay and 
     allowances currently received by DoD military personnel. 
     Payments would be extended to optometrists, non-physician 
     health care providers, and foreign language specialists at a 
     cost of $4 million annually. These costs would fall under 
     various budget functions.

  TABLE 3.--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 AS  
                           ORDERED REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES                           
                                    [By fiscal years, in millions of dollars]                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                   1997         1998         1999         2000         2001         2002   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stated authorizations.............      198,120            0            0            0            0            0
Estimated outlays.................      106,579       51,760       21,615        9,373        3,938        2,084
Endstrengths:                                                                                                   
    Function 050:                                                                                               
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................       68,479            0            0            0            0            0
        Estimated outlays.........       65,036        3,443            0            0            0            0
    Function 400:                                                                                               
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................           66            0            0            0            0            0
        Estimated outlays.........           59            7            0            0            0            0
Compensation and Benefits (DoD):                                                                                
    Military Pay Raise:                                                                                         
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................        1,378        1,824        1,798        1,780        1,779        1,776
        Estimated outlays.........        1,309        1,802        1,799        1,781        1,779        1,776
    Expiring Authorities--Active                                                                                
     Duty:                                                                                                      
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................            0          148           51           35           33           16
        Estimated outlays.........            0          141           56           36           33           17
    Expiring Authorities--Aviation                                                                              
     and Nuclear Officers:                                                                                      
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................            0           49           24           24           17           15
        Estimated outlays.........            0           47           25           24           17           15
    Expiring Authorities--                                                                                      
     Reserves:                                                                                                  
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................            0           33           27           18           13            9
        Estimated outlays.........            0           31           27           18           13            9
    Expiring Authorities--Nurses:                                                                               
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................            0           12            0            0            0            0
        Estimated outlays.........            0           11            1            0            0            0
    Duty at Sea:                                                                                                
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................           40           40           41           41           41           41
        Estimated outlays.........           38           40           41           41           41           41
    Grade Relief;                                                                                               
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................            3           33           34           35           36           37
        Estimated outlays.........            3           31           34           35           36           37
    Dental Special Pay:                                                                                         
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................            8            8            8            8            8            8
        Estimated outlays.........            8            8            8            8            8            8
    Moving Costs:                                                                                               
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................            4            5            5            5            5            5
        Estimated outlays.........            4            5            5            5            5            5
    Family Separation Allowances:                                                                               
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................            2            2            2            2            2            2
        Estimated outlays.........            2            2            2            2            2            2
    Adoption Expenses:                                                                                          
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................            1            1            1            1            1            1
        Estimated outlays.........            1            1            1            1            1            1
    Cap on Military Personnel                                                                                   
     Appropriations:                                                                                            
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................          -36            0            0            0            0            0
        Estimated outlays.........          -35           -2            0            0            0            0
Health Care Provisions:                                                                                         
    Retiree Dental Insurance:                                                                                   
        Estimated authorization...        (\1\)          283          296          309          322          337
        Estimated outlays.........        (\1\)          212          293          306          319          333
    Composite Health Care System                                                                                
     (CHCS):                                                                                                    
        Estimated authorization                                                                                 
         level....................        (\1\)        (\2\)        (\2\)        (\2\)        (\2\)        (\2\)
        Estimated outlays.........        (\1\)        (\2\)        (\2\)        (\2\)        (\2\)        (\2\)
Civilian Retirement Annuities:                                                                                  
    Estimated authorization level.        (\1\)           10           60           60           60           60
    Estimated outlays.............        (\1\)           10           60           60           60           60
Public Health Service:                                                                                          
    Estimated authorization level.            4            4            4            4            4            4
    Estimated outlays.............            4            4            4            4            4            4
Total Authorizations of                                                                                         
 Appropriations:                                                                                                
    Estimated authorization level.      268,069        2,452        2,351        2,322        2,321        2,311
    Estimated outlays from                                                                                      
     authorizations for 1997......      173,007       55,280       21,615        9,373        3,938        2,084
    Estimated outlays from                                                                                      
     authorizations for 1998-2001.            0        2,273        2,356        2,321        2,318        2,308
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1997 impacts of these provisions are included in the amounts specifically authorized to be appropriated 
  in the bill.                                                                                                  
\2\ CBO is unable to estimate the costs of this provision.                                                      

       Panama Canal Commission. Title XXXV would authorize the 
     Panama Canal Commission to spend any sums available to it 
     from operating revenues or Treasury borrowing for operation, 
     maintenance, and improvement of the canal in fiscal year 
     1997. This spending is considered discretionary, because the 
     appropriation bill customarily establishes an obligation 
     ceiling for this account. CBO estimates that Panama Canal 
     Commission collections and outlays will be about $624 million 
     in 1997.
       7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting 
     direct spending or receipts through 1998. Because this bill 
     would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would 
     apply. These effects are summarized in the following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            1996       1997       1998  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays......................          0         -1         13
Change in receipts.....................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable.                                                     

       8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal 
     governments: The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates 
     as defined in Public Law 104-4 and would impose no 
     significant costs on State, local, or tribal governments. A 
     number of the bill's provisions--such as those pertaining to 
     cultural resource management, land transfers, and teacher and 
     firefighter placement programs--would affect State, or local 
     governments; however, none would create new enforceable 
     duties or result in significant budgetary impacts on these 
     entitles.
       9. Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill would 
     impose no new Federal private sector mandates, as defined in 
     Public Law 104-4.

[[Page S6508]]

       10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
       11. Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost Estimate: Kent 
     Christensen, Victoria Fraider, Raymond Hall, and Amy Plapp 
     prepared the estimates affecting the Department of Defense; 
     they can be reached at 226-2840. Kathy Gramp (226-2860) 
     prepared the estimate for the Naval Petroleum Reserve. 
     Deborah Reis (226-2860) prepared the estimate for the Panama 
     Canal Commission. Wayne Boyington (226-2820) prepared the 
     estimates for the costs of changes to civilian retirement 
     programs.
       State and local government impact: Leo Lex and Karen McVey 
     (226-2885).
       Private sector impact: Neil Singer (226-2900).
       12. Estimate approved by Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, for those who may be listening, I believe 
there had originally been a vote at 9:15 that the leader had announced 
and now that the amendment, which was the Simpson amendment, has been 
disposed of and agreed to with the second-degree amendment that was 
accepted, so as far as I know--and the Senator from Idaho may want to 
add to this--there will be no vote on this amendment at 9:15 tomorrow 
morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct; that vote was 
vitiated.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, we are certainly in agreement that the 
vote which was ordered has been vitiated, or has been dealt with. We 
have not yet received final word from the majority leader as to whether 
or not he wishes to still have an early vote. We will know that very 
shortly.
  At this point 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. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________