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

[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.

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.

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.

____________________}