[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6829-S6848]
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. THURMOND. Are we ready to vote?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like, in responding to the 
chairman, to now----
  Mr. THURMOND. Has the Senator proposed the amendment yet?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. We have not, and if it is OK with the chairman, I 
would like to go ahead and introduce the amendment now.


                           Amendment No. 4156

     (Purpose: To provide for a quadrennial defense review and an 
 independent assessment of alternative force structures for the Armed 
                                Forces)

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4156 to the 
Department of Defense authorization bill and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. LIEBERMAN], for himself, 
     Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Coats, Mr. Robb, Mr. McCain, Mr. Nunn, Mr. 
     Inhofe, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
     Santorum, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Levin, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Bond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4156.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.''
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, as previously discussed, this is the amendment which 
would provide for both an in-the-Pentagon-and-outside-the-Pentagon, 
under the Secretary of Defense, national defense panel review of our 
national security structure to answer basic questions: What are the 
threats to our national security in the coming decades, and how can we 
best meet them? It is an attempt to get out of the box, get out of the 
day-to-day here and look forward, over the horizon, so that we are 
ready to face and meet whatever threats to our security exist, and to 
do so in the most cost-effective way.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the broad bipartisan support for the 
amendment, including the statement from the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Thurmond. I believe my cosponsor, the Senator from Indiana, who 
spoke only briefly before, does have further comments.
  I do want to indicate to my colleagues here that Senator Coats and I 
do intend to ask for a rollcall vote on this. We do not expect the 
debate will be long, but we do hope to do so sometime soon this 
afternoon.
  I look forward to the debate and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, America's preeminence in the world is 
accompanied by the opportunity and burden of leadership to shape the 
international community. I have been somewhat perplexed that our 
concerns with national defense are often no broader than the level of 
defense spending, which we generally debate only during the annual 
authorization and appropriation cycles. It is incumbent that we 
consider the scope of the demands and expectations placed on our 
military in support of America's role in shaping the work today, and 
through the next century. Included are the fundamental issues of our 
national security interests, the nature of future conflicts, and the 
most appropriate military strategy for which the Department of Defense 
should develop its military capabilities. These considerations must be 
made deliberately, not by default. Failing to do so will lead the 
United States to react, rather than control, events in the next 
century.
  The actions we take on the defense authorization bill will 
fundamentally influence our national security strategy and force 
structure well into the next century. Properly done, these decisions 
will be a powerful investment in the future. Unfortunately, there is 
widespread consensus--both in and out of the Pentagon--that the 
administration's 1993 Bottom Up Review strategy is not the strategy 
America needs to guide its military into the 21st century. The strategy 
has been chronically underfunded, with shortfall estimates ranging 
anywhere from $50 to $150 billion. There is great skepticism with the 
two major regional conflict [MRC] yardstick that undergirds the 
Pentagon force planning. And, perhaps most disquieting, is the BUR's 
implicit assumption that the nature of future conflicts will closely 
resemble those of the past. The effects of misinvesting in a strategy 
that has lost its relevance are immense.
  Congress has done its best to reconcile the sizable disconnect 
between the BUR's requirements to fight and win two nearly simultaneous 
MRC's and the funding needed to execute such a strategy. But, while 
Congress has supported the military in sustaining readiness, in 
modernizing for the future, and in holding the line against additional 
force structure cuts in order to meet the BUR requirements, the 
administration has accused Congress of pork barrel politics. When 
Congress has tried to rectify serious funding shortfalls in programs at 
the urgings of senior military leaders, the administration has accused 
Congress of contributing to inefficient defense spending. The political 
gamesmanship over issues crucial to America's national security has 
created such hyperbole that the merits in investing defense dollars 
today for an uncertain future tomorrow confuse most Americans. I have 
serious concerns over the impact this political spin may ultimately 
have a public support for our troops.
  In an era of competing budget priorities, an expanding continuum of 
military operations, the uncertainty of future threats and emerging new 
technologies, we can ill afford a business as usual approach on 
investing in our future defense. Senator Lieberman, myself, and a host 
of cosponsors have worked in a bipartisan effort to ensure that the 
Defense Department and Congress will make only the most prudent 
investments in defense. Through this amendment--a review of the Armed 
Forces force structure--we intend to do more than affect the next 
military strategy and its resultant force structure. In establishing an 
independent, nonpartisan National Defense Panel, prominent defense 
experts will assess alternative force structure strategies in light of 
future threats, emerging technologies, required capabilities, and a 
broad continuum of military operations that may be likely in the 
future. The National Defense Panel's assessment will be far more 
comprehensive than previous force structure assessments, and will 
explore innovative, forward-thinking ways of meeting future national 
security challenges. The complete assessment will provide alternatives 
to a singular military strategy and its resultant force structure that 
will, in turn, enable Congress, the Defense Department, and the 
American public to better consider the level of defense spending our 
Nation requires in support of its national interests.

  The National Defense Panel will also assist the Defense Department as 
it undertakes its quadrennial strategy review over the next year. The 
Department's Quadrennial review, while more narrow in focus, will 
examine force structure, modernization plans, infrastructure, defense 
policies and other elements of the defense program to develop a new 
defense strategy replacing the Bottom Up Review.

[[Page S6830]]

  A salient feature of this amendment is that it will challenge current 
thinking about defense. Senator Lieberman and I, along with the 
cosponsors of this amendment, share the concern that the tendency to 
focus on immediate issues has distracted from the task of structuring 
the military to meet new operating environments, accommodate 
revolutionary changes in military technology and prepare for the 
possibility of entirely new kinds of threats and competitors. As Paul 
Bracken wrote in his 1993 article entitled ``The Military After Next,''

       The military posture for the next 20 years is 
     conceptualized implicitly in terms of the problems of today, 
     rather than in terms of deeper forces that reflect both the 
     changing character of war and the military transformation 
     taking place in the world. Immediate U.S. problems are 
     characterized by deep military budget cuts, regional 
     contingencies, ``messy operations'' [such as Bosnia, Haiti 
     and Somalia] and a substantial military capacity inherited as 
     a legacy from the Cold War. All of these are worthy of 
     attention. But, if anything is certain, it is that in 20 
     years the current budget crisis, the regional strategy . . . 
     will be forgotten as new problems of national security and 
     international order appear.

  Although our Nation still faces a range of current threats, we must 
not let current threats lead us into assuming that incremental 
improvements to our military will be sufficient to deal with the range 
of scenarios we may face in the 21st century. Our country has a strong 
tendency to defer revolutionary changes in favor of these incremental 
improvements. The BUR strategy of fighting 2 MRC's is a prime example, 
taking the Desert Storm model and geographically tailoring it to future 
scenarios. But it is not an adequate guide for future innovation. We 
can no longer afford to conveniently fit current situations to existing 
planning and resource allocation processes. Doing so will yield a 
defense program geared to the most familiar threats, as opposed to 
those most likely to occur.
  In closing, I would submit that the familiar path of the past--as 
convenient as it may be--will not necessarily lead us to the future we 
wish to shape. The review of the Armed Forces force structures 
amendment before us now will provide Congress and the Defense 
Department with comprehensive analysis addressing a range of force 
structures and capabilities appropriate for future threats. It is our 
hope that, ultimately, this amendment will serve to further public and 
congressional debate over the priority our Nation should place on its 
defense. Our Nation must have confidence in its military strategy, must 
provide for the capabilities our Armed Forces require to perform the 
missions expected of them, and must understand and accept the risks of 
doing otherwise. I urge the support of this amendment--it is a major 
step forward toward smarter defense planning and investing, and enjoys 
wide bipartisan support from Members throughout the Senate.
  Mr. President, let me state this is the culmination of some effort on 
the part of the Senator from Connecticut, who has taken the lead in 
this effort, myself, and a number of other members of the Armed 
Services Committee who are concerned that we are not adequately 
addressing some of the major questions that need to be addressed in 
preparing a strategy and setting a program in place relative to our 
national security needs for the next century. The next century sounds 
like a long way away, but it is only 3\1/2\ years. In fact, it is 
actually the next millennium. It is almost difficult to comprehend.
  As history has shown, civilizations have been weakened and even 
collapsed, and mighty armies and navies have been defeated because they 
were rooted in the wars of the past. They were rooted in the 
procurement of weapons to fight those wars based on what worked before, 
not what they might need in the future.
  None of us has a crystal ball that can tell exactly what will 
constitute an adequate national security apparatus and national defense 
in the future. Yet we need to examine the questions about the kinds of 
threats and the nature of those threats that we will be faced with in 
the future.
  We are in the midst of a technology explosion that obviously is 
impacting on warfare. We had a glimpse of that explosion and what it 
means during our viewing of the Persian Gulf war on ``CNN Live.'' There 
were remarkable pictures of a war in progress and a demonstration of 
what technology can do in terms of changing the terms of warfare. I am 
sure the nation of Iraq thought it was amply prepared to successfully 
defend its aggressive takeover of Kuwait, only to find itself 
hopelessly, not outmanned, but outsmarted, from a technological 
standpoint. No nation is going to make that mistake again. No aggressor 
is going to make that mistake again. Future aggressors will contemplate 
about what it is going to take in the future to encounter the United 
States. The conflicts we face in the future will be much different from 
those we have encountered in the past.
  We need to take advantage of the remarkable research, development, 
time and ability to bring new technologies to bear in terms of our 
armed services and our national defense. Unfortunately, it seems the 
Congress is locked into a ``what do we need right now'' mentality. We 
do our thinking and spending and planning in 1-year increments, 2 years 
at best. As a result, it seems we are measuring on the basis of what we 
did last year, and trying to make a decision on what incremental 
changes we can adjust to for the future years. Basically what we do is 
make incremental changes.
  The Pentagon is well aware of this problem, and they are attempting 
to address this through a strategy called the quadrennial review. That 
takes a 4-year look and it coincides with the possibilities of each 
administration, each new administration. But we need to look beyond 
that. To do so, we are asking the Pentagon to address a number of 
issues of concern to us, and establish an independent review panel to 
give us certain assessments. The results of these assessments will 
provide us with a better, broader body of knowledge with which to 
evaluate the potential threats, with which to evaluate the potential 
strategies--and I use the plural, not the singular use of the word--
which we might employ to deter or counter those threats and on which we 
can make procurement decisions, research decisions, and allocate the 
increasingly scarce dollars available for our national defense. This 
was less of a problem in the 1980's because we had ample funds 
available from which to take advantage of many different alternatives 
and select the one which best fit. We do not have that luxury now. We 
do not have anywhere near that luxury. Defense is now in its 12th 
straight year of decline in terms of budget allocations. The military 
has been scaled back nearly 40 percent in just about every category. We 
have to make decisions on the basis of a far smaller margin of error.
  In that regard, having a broader assessment of our potential threats, 
our potential responses to those threats, is going to allow us to make 
better decisions to spend those dollars more wisely. That is really 
what this amendment is all about.

  I was pleased to have the opportunity to work with the Senator from 
Connecticut and with others of my colleagues on the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. I am pleased this amendment has a growing list of 
bipartisan--nonpartisan--support. I think a year from now we are going 
to be in the midst of a process which is going to give us some very 
relevant information from which we can base decisions that are 
extremely critical to our future. So I am pleased to be a coauthor and 
a cosponsor of this amendment.
  With that, I observe we might be prepared, unless the managers are 
aware other Senators are coming to the floor to speak, to move to a 
vote.
  I believe it is appropriate to ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendments be set aside. I am not exactly sure what the parliamentary 
request needs to be in order to bring this amendment up.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it was my understanding the pending 
amendments had been set aside and this amendment was now the pending 
business. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, after consultation with the chairman

[[Page S6831]]

of the committee, I ask unanimous consent that, when the vote occurs on 
this amendment, it occur by rollcall and the rollcall be held at 5 this 
afternoon, with no second-degree amendments in order.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the vote occurring at 5 
o'clock and that no second-degree amendments be in order?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is the Senator seeking the yeas and nays?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I was about to do that. I was going to ask when a vote 
be taken it be taken by the yeas and nays.
  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.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of an 
amendment to require a much-needed new assessment of future U.S. 
military force structure requirements. In March of this year, I 
released a paper which called for a new study of our national security 
strategy and the military force structure that supports our strategy. 
If adopted, this amendment will ensure that the Department of Defense 
and the Congress work together to create a flexible U.S. military force 
structure capable of adapting effectively to meet the ever-changing 
challenges of the 21st century.
  Very briefly, let me summarize the amendment. First, it would require 
the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to Congress on the 
quadrennial defense review, which is expected to be completed in the 
spring of 1997. The QDR is the Secretary's effort to reassess our 
current strategy and force structure and is intended to form the basis 
of our military planning through the year 2005. The amendment would 
require the Secretary to consider certain specific issues in his 
review.
  The amendment would also provide for two separate, independent 
assessments of the quadrennial defense review, to ensure that the 
Congress has a full understanding of the assumptions and conclusions of 
the QDR.
  One assessment would be done by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff and provided to Congress with the QDR. This provision is included 
in the amendment because it is essential that we have the views of our 
professional military leaders as we determine the future of our 
military strategy and force structure for the next century.
  Another assessment of the QDR would be undertaken by an independent, 
nonpartisan National Defense Panel, which the amendment would 
establish. The Panel would also be charged with developing a variety of 
alternative proposals for force structures and budgets, using analyses 
and information acquired from the Department of Defense, the Joint 
Staff, and other agencies. The Panel would focus on developing a longer 
term assessment than the QDR, through the year 2010 and beyond, where 
possible. The Panel's assessment of the QDR and alternative proposals 
would also be provided to Congress.
  Mr. President, the amendment enjoys broad bipartisan support among 
Senators with experience in defense issues. The principal cosponsors 
are Senators Lieberman, Coats, and Robb, joined by others of our 
colleagues.
  Mr. President, we crafted this amendment in recognition of the 
pressing need for a full reassessment of our military force structure 
in light of the changing realities of the post-cold war world. In the 
past 5 years, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, our Armed Forces 
have shrunk from a force of 2.1 million active duty personnel to 
approximately 1.4 million people today. While these reductions were 
being implemented, the Pentagon has conducted two evaluations of the 
organization, composition, and equipment requirements of our smaller 
force in light of the changing realities of the post-cold war world. 
The results are contained in the Bush administration's ``Base Force'' 
and Clinton administration's ``Bottom Up Review'' assessments.
  Both assessments were laudable early efforts to adjust the post-cold 
war world, and both served an important purpose in focusing attention 
on the need to reevaluate the military posture of the United States. 
But neither were truly innovative approaches to a comprehensive, 
critical review, and reshaping of our strategy and military forces. In 
fact, the Bottom Up Review was a top down directive, shaped largely by 
budget targets established before the exercise began and by strategy 
and force goals that then-Congressman Aspin had developed a year 
earlier.
  The pending amendment seeks to address many of the concerns expressed 
by Congress and national security experts alike about the last attempt 
to conduct a strategic review. The amendment is also driven by the 
recognition, just 3 years after completion of the Bottom Up Review, 
that the swift pace of global change has created the need for a new and 
fundamental reassessment of the force structure of the Armed Forces 
required to meet threats to the United States in the 21st century.
  First, the amendment would require a comprehensive assessment of 
potential threats to our future security, which is an essential element 
of determining our future military force requirements. The amendment 
specifically identifies several categories of potential threats to our 
future security, both near- and long-term, which must be addressed in 
any strategic review. These threats include:
  The continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and means 
to deliver them, as well as the transfer of technology relating to such 
weapons,
  Conventional threats across a spectrum of conflicts, which would 
include the rise of radical Islamic fundamentalism and other political 
extremist movements,
  The vulnerability of our information systems and other advanced 
technologies to nontraditional threats,
  Domestic and international terrorism, and
  The potential emergence of a major challenger in the future.
  The amendment would specifically direct the independent National 
Defense Panel to analyze each of these threats and provide an 
assessment of the challenges posed to our future security. The Panel 
would also provide its comments with respect to the threat assessment 
underlying the quadrennnial defense review, thus ensuring that all 
foreseeable future threats are examined and considered in the review.
  Second, the amendment would ensure that both the quadrennial defense 
review and the Panel's independent assessment consider some very 
important issues which were not fully addressed in connection with the 
Bottom Up Review. Let me take a moment to mention several of the 
explicit instructions contained in this amendment:
  The amendment requires a full analysis of the potential impact of 
allied cooperation and mission sharing on U.S. force size and 
structure.
  It requires a clear explanation of assumptions about levels of 
acceptable risk in conflict scenarios and force levels.
  It also requires a clear statement of the assumptions about warning 
time for future conflicts and planning for simultaneous or nearly 
simultaneous conflict scenarios.
  It requires a full assessment of the impact of preparing for and 
participating in peace operations and military operations other than 
war on force structure requirements in likely conflict scenarios.
  It requires a detailed description of anticipated future technology 
advancements and their impact on force size and organization.
  It requires an analysis of manpower and sustainment policies, Reserve 
versus active component mix, tooth-to-tail ratio, and airlift and 
sealift requirements for the future.
  These specific guidelines will result in a more thorough and detailed 
review of the military capabilities required to meet future threats.
  Finally, this amendment recognizes the inadvisability of 
predetermining future Defense budgets before conducting an analysis of 
our security requirements--a significant flaw of the Bottom Up Review. 
The amendment would require that a topline funding projection be 
developed for each scenario-driven force structure plan developed by 
the Panel. It would also require the Panel to independently assess the 
validity of the budgetary requirements reported by the Secretary of 
Defense

[[Page S6832]]

for his quadrennial defense review. In this way, the Department of 
Defense and the Congress will be able to consider both security 
requirements and affordability when reviewing alternative force 
structure options.

  Mr. President, this last point is very important. We cannot ignore 
fiscal reality in military planning, but we must never acquiesce to 
demands for reduced defense spending regardless of the threats to our 
national security.
  Because of the cuts in defense spending over the last 12 years--a 
nearly 40-percent reduction in real, inflation-adjusted terms, we now 
face a significant gap between our overall force plans and the 
resources available to implement them. Independent assessments of the 
cost of the Bottom-Up Review force show that it exceeds the funding 
levels dedicated by the Clinton administration in the Future Years 
Defense Program by $150 to almost $500 billion. As a result, we have 
had to make a series of Hobson's choices among defense priorities. We 
have had to choose among cutting force strength, maintaining readiness, 
or funding force modernization. The result has been reductions in all 
three areas.
  The Republican-led Congress has added more than $18 billion to the 
defense budget in the past 2 years, but even this amount has not slowed 
the too-rapid decline in defense spending. The fact remains that our 
rising Federal debt and ongoing efforts to achieve a balanced Federal 
budget will continue to put enormous pressures on Federal spending.
  Mr. President, this amendment will help us determine the appropriate 
level of funding to ensure our Nation's security in the next century. 
This amendment would ensure both the Department of Defense and the 
independent National Defense Panel conduct a thorough assessment of the 
threats we are likely to face, take a realistic look at potential 
future conflict scenarios, and provide alternatives for an effective 
military posture together with credible budget estimates. With the 
information this amendment would make available, the Congress and the 
administration could work together to ensure that our future national 
security requirements will be met while, at the same time, recognizing 
appropriate fiscal constraints.
  Mr. President, let me take just a moment to thank Senator Lieberman 
for taking the lead in putting this amendment together. I particularly 
want to thank John Lilley, who has left Senator Lieberman's staff for a 
more lucrative position in the private sector. He worked very closely 
with my staff and with the staffs of the other principal cosponsors of 
the amendment, and he is to be commended for his diligence and fairness 
in addressing all of our concerns.
  Mr. President, in closing, the fast pace of change in our world 
requires that we create and maintain a flexible military force for the 
future, which will be able to adapt quickly to the changing 
requirements of our future security. It is now time to undertake a 
thorough and innovative effort to reassess our military force structure 
and the national security strategy that it supports. This amendment 
would ensure that all aspects of national security planning are 
thoroughly assessed in formulating recommendations for our future 
military force structure. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am happy to join my cochairman of the 
Senate National Guard Caucus in cosponsoring the amendment by Senators 
Lieberman, Coats, Robb, and McCain to review the Armed Forces force 
structure.
  Just a few years ago, Congress approved the establishment of the 
Roles and Missions Commission. However, many of us were very 
disappointed with the Commission's findings, because those findings 
were clearly written with a bias against the National Guard.
  Mr. President, the authors of this amendment have worked with Senator 
Bond and myself to make sure that the National Defense panel 
established by this legislation considers the Guard and Reserve without 
prejudice. To accomplish this, the amendment directs the ``review is to 
involve a comprehensive examination of defense strategy to include 
Active, Guard, and Reserve components.''
  Just a few months ago, the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, 
Senator McCain, along with the ranking member Senator Glenn, held a 
hearing on the readiness requirements of the National Guard and Reserve 
forces. At that time, the General Accounting Office presented 
information that Senator Bond and I found to be either out of date or 
simply inaccurate. I ask unanimous consent that the letter Senator Bond 
and I sent to Senator McCain be printed in the Record at the end of my 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See 
exhibit 1.)
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the National Guard Caucus is very concerned 
by the determination of individuals within the Defense establishment to 
keep putting out negative information on the National Guard. The 
inaccurate and out-of-date information from GAO is just another example 
in a long string of misinformation.
  It is my hope this report will be different--that it will be 
accurate. Because the sponsors of this amendment have assured me that 
it will, I join with my cochairman, Senator Bond, in cosponsoring this 
amendment.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 1996.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Readiness Subcommittee, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As Co-Chairmen of the Senate National 
     Guard Caucus, we commend you and Senator Glenn on your active 
     roles in examining the readiness requirements of the National 
     Guard and Reserve forces. We strongly support your efforts to 
     provide sufficient resources to ensure that the nation has a 
     capable and well trained military force. The Caucus remains 
     convinced that, under the pressures of a reduced defense 
     budget, the requirements to develop and produce modern 
     replacement weapon systems coupled with a continued draw-down 
     of our active forces, will result in an ever-increasing 
     requirement for our nation to once again rely on part-time 
     citizen soldier combat forces--the National Guard.
       Over the past several years, the Caucus has attempted to 
     identify those areas that are impediments to producing a 
     combat ready National Guard which would be available in a 
     timely manner to respond to major contingencies around the 
     world. We are convinced that the recently-announced National 
     guard proposal to convert and realign a large portion of the 
     Guard combat divisions to meet other identified Army 
     requirements, have gone a long way toward reaching that 
     objective.
       We do however have concerns regarding some of the material 
     presented at your Subcommittee hearing by witnesses from the 
     General Accounting Office. We believe this information to be 
     out-of-date or otherwise inaccurate.
       1. The GAO contended that the National Guard Enhanced 
     brigades can't meet the 90-day readiness goal set for them in 
     the current military strategy.
       During Operation Desert Storm in 1990-91, the 48th Infantry 
     Brigade was certified as combat ready in 91 days of which 
     only 55 days were actually needed for training. this number 
     is very close to their pre-mobilization estimate of up to 42 
     days.
       2. The GAO testified that the brigades are having 
     difficulty meeting the training goals set for their platoons.
       Since the GAO did not indicate which brigades are 
     supposedly having trouble, we can only say that the most up-
     to date information the Senate National Guard Caucus has 
     indicates that the platoon goals of the Enhanced Brigades are 
     being met ahead of time and some of the Enhanced Brigades are 
     already operating at the battalion level.
       3. The Roundout Brigades weren't ready in time ``when they 
     were needed'' in Desert Storm.
       The 48th Brigade from Georgia and the 155th of Mississippi 
     had been replaced within their parent Division by active army 
     units months before they were mobilized. The other brigade, 
     the 256th from Louisiana rounded out an active duty army 
     division that did not deploy. The major reason given by the 
     Defense Department for not calling these units up earlier was 
     the law at the time (10 USC 673) permitted only a 90 day call 
     up with a 90 day extension and DOD felt at the time that the 
     deployment would be for a longer period. As you are aware, 
     Congress authorized a longer call up and these Brigades began 
     mobilization on November 30, 1990. The brigades did not have 
     to undergo six months of postmobilization training. The 48th 
     had been validated as combat ready in 91 days (55 days of 
     actual training). If the 48th had been mobilized when the 
     Presidential Selected Reserve Call-up was authorized (August 
     22, 1990) and validated 91 days later (November 21, 1990), it 
     could have deployed before the VII Corps began moving from 
     the U.S. and Germany to Saudi Arabia.
       4. Turbulence and turnover rates preclude reaching 
     readiness goals and higher unit training.
       This is the oddest GAO statement yet made and they 
     obviously did not bother talking to anyone at the National 
     Guard Bureau.

[[Page S6833]]

     If the GAO had bothered to check their facts, they would have 
     learned that the turbulence and turnover rates in the 
     National Guard enhanced readiness brigades are generally well 
     below those of comparable active Army units! It is incredible 
     that the GAO does not know that turbulence in the military is 
     not caused by promoting a loader in a tank crew to the 
     position of driver in the same crew! Maybe the Director of 
     the General Accounting Office ought to send his employees to 
     Fort Knox to learn about how a tank crew operates before they 
     are assigned to develop a report such as that provided to 
     your Committee. Military units --Active or Reserve--need a 
     certain amount of turnover; they cannot keep the same 
     soldiers in the same job forever. American soldiers, 
     whether in the National Guard or active Army units, seek 
     additional responsibility and status that come with 
     promotion. Units that don't have a healthy level of 
     turnover stagnate and have over-age-in-grade problems.
       5. Combat arms jobs, particularly armor and infantry, are 
     too hard to do for reservists with only 38 days training each 
     year so our reserve components should be limited to only 
     those tasks that are similar to what the soldiers do in their 
     civilian occupation.
       The average Guardsman trains 45.1 paid days each year. 
     Officers and NCOs are more likely to train more than 45.1 
     paid days. At the lower enlisted levels, combat arms jobs are 
     no harder to train for than most support jobs such as 
     positions in Engineer and Field Artillery units. Yet National 
     Guard Field Artillery brigades were deployed to Desert Storm 
     with minimal post-mobilization training and performed well. 
     The Marine Corps reserve deployed tank battalions to Desert 
     Storm and performed well.
       6. The Reserve Component soldiers can do well only those 
     tasks that are similar to their civilian jobs so their roles 
     should be limited to support tanks.
       Once again it is obvious that the GAO did not discuss this 
     conclusion with the National Guard Bureau. Had the GAO 
     checked with the Guard they would have learned that there is 
     very little correlation between Reserve Component civilian 
     skills and military duties; across the board, fewer than 20% 
     of the Guardsmen and women in a particular military field do 
     a similar job in civilian life. Hers are some of the figures 
     supplied to us by the National Guard Bureau: Aviators 14.8%; 
     Military Police 19.4%; Truck Delivers 5.8%; Mechanics 16.9%; 
     and Engineers 10.7%.
       7. The GAO says it would take years to deploy all 15 
     Enhanced Brigades.
       Since the GAO does not identify their source for this 
     information, we think the Committee should take the 
     information from responsible professionals at the United 
     States Army Forces Command which is the responsible agency 
     for developing plans to ensure that all Reserve Components 
     are validated for deployment following mobilization. Their 
     current plan, using only four post mobilization training 
     sites, would deploy the first four brigades in 90 days or 
     less and all 15 brigades in 180 days. Should additional sites 
     be available and additional training resources be made 
     available, potentially all 15 brigades could be deployed in 
     90 days or less. As to GAO's claim that there has been no 
     analysis to justify the National Guard's 15 brigades and 
     eight divisions, the only analysis that has been done to date 
     (1993 Bottom-up Review) calls for the very force that exists 
     today.
       As the Defense Department forces are called upon to do more 
     and more will less and less, the National Guard and Reserve 
     will be required to perform their Federal missions with 
     greater regularity. Military analysts agree that, in the near 
     future, a spike in funding for the National Guard and 
     Reserves will be required in order to keep these forces 
     adequately resources. We raised these issues in order to 
     highlight our concern over the funding, manning and 
     utilization of our National Guard and Reserve forces 
     nationwide.
       We look forward to working with you and your staff during 
     the year to ensure the National Guard remains a viable 
     partner in the Total Force defense posture of the nation and 
     remains more than capable of performing its state and Federal 
     missions.
           Sincerely,
     Christopher S. Bond.
     Wendell H. Ford.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
business be temporarily set aside and I be allowed to speak in morning 
business for no longer than 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Coats pertaining to the introduction of S. 1904 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise briefly to associate myself most 
emphatically with the remarks of the Senator from Connecticut and the 
Senator from Indiana in regard to the National Defense Panel to review 
of our defense needs. I ask unanimous consent that I be made a 
cosponsor of that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I do so in the context of a commission 
created in the 103d Congress, the Commission on Protecting and Reducing 
Government Secrecy, which was established to review the whole pattern 
of the protection of the Nation's intelligence and defense secrets as 
we moved into a very different era from that from which we are clearly 
emerging.
  The present regime for protecting secrecy in our country was 
basically put in place in a very few days, weeks at most, in the 
aftermath of the declaration of war on Germany in 1917. The Espionage 
Act of 1917 was introduced in the first week of April, 1917, as the 
United States entered the First World War, and is still in place, 
though an amendment passed the following year known as the Sedition 
Act--largely a revision of section 3 of the Espionage Act--was 
subsequently repealed.
  In that same first week of April 1917, the Civil Service Commission 
presented to President Wilson a request for an Executive order on the 
question of the loyalty of Federal employees. Again, demonstrating a 
pattern, although one interrupted, that we see in our present 
situation--the arrangements put in place near the beginning of the 
century remain in place today.
  These are very considerable arrangements. Some 2,300,000 American 
civil servants have clearances for various levels of access to 
classified material. Some 850,000 persons in civilian employment in 
defense industries in the main are similarly cleared for classified 
material. The cost is very considerable, the issue is consequential.
  We did deal at great length with the problem of espionage in this 
country during the First World War. The Central Powers and the Allied 
Powers were very much contending for American support. It is a known 
fact that the German Ambassador to this country brought with him on one 
of his trips $150 million in Treasury bonds, the equivalent of $1 
billion today, to use for just that purpose. And it had its 
consequences.
  During the 1930's, again, there were efforts of this kind from 
Hitler's Germany. Simultaneously, from the beginning of the 
establishment of the Communist Party in the United States, the Soviet 
Union had been involved in espionage activities, having as their most 
dramatic event the infiltration of the Manhattan Project. They 
successfully transferred to the Soviet Union the essential plans for 
the first atomic bomb. The Soviet Union had an atomic bomb about four 
years from the time that the United States did. It was almost, bolt for 
bolt, modeled on the original device tested at Alamogordo and the bomb 
that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan.
  The details of this espionage effort are just emerging as the Venona 
transcripts are being released by the National Security Agency. We feel 
in our Commission that we have been something of a catalyst with regard 
to the Venona release, and with it we are beginning to see just how 
much the United States was up against and how necessary some of these 
measures were. We also begin to ask ourselves whether they are still 
necessary in the face of a very different international setting today.
  The Commission has a distinguished membership. I serve as Chairman; 
the Honorable Larry Combest, the chairman of the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence is Vice Chairman; the Honorable John Deutch 
was originally appointed when he was Deputy Secretary of Defense, and 
continues to serve on the Commission in his role as Director of Central 
Intelligence.
  We are finding, and I think the Senator from Connecticut will know 
this and will agree, that in the new world of electronic communication, 
the security of American encrypted messages is very much problematic, 
and the capacities of persons all over the world, for whatever reason, 
to break into the Pentagon files and intercept messages is almost 
difficult to comprehend for someone over the age of 30. We learned just 
yesterday in the New York Times

[[Page S6834]]

that a 16-year-old British youth with a small computer in his bedroom 
in North London was intercepting messages from American agents in North 
Korea, and there are several criminal prosecutions going on in the 
United Kingdom of that kind. How to deal with this entirely new set of 
challenges is the reason for establishing such bodies as the Commission 
on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy--and I think that the 
commission proposed here to inquire into the nature of our military 
defense needs in the future, with a larger view than the quadrennial 
review--is wholly in order. I am honored to be a cosponsor of the 
amendment. I hope the work of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing 
Secrecy might be of some utility to this commission, as it begins its 
work.

  I thank the sponsors, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
Senator from New York, for joining me as a cosponsor and for his 
characteristic informed comments. He goes right to the heart of it.
  The fact is that it was the experience of the commission with regard 
to the Nation's intelligence structure that worked in the 1970's that 
is the inspiration for that concept being included in this amendment. 
The work he is doing now in this area with this commission, I hope, 
will be considered by the panel convened under the amendment.
  As the Senator indicates, changes that have occurred are 
extraordinary. Former Deputy Chief of Staff, Admiral Owens, who was 
very comfortable with the new technologies and very far-sighted, said 
we are now at a point where our commanders can, for the most part now 
or on the verge in the very near future, can see the whole battlefield 
for miles ahead, around them, and in front of then. That has never been 
the case for people who have gone to war. This is because of 
these extraordinary not only satellites but helicopters, the unmanned 
aerial vehicles. The fact is at a given moment in real time today the 
commanders on the field--in fact, the heads of our military structure 
back at the Pentagon--can see exactly what is happening on the 
battlefield and be involved.

  As the Senator indicated, the dependence we have on communication and 
information, the potential threats to current methods of encryption of 
our messages is exactly what I hope this commission will go at. The 
fact is that part of what we are asking it to do is look at the United 
States not as the world's great superpower, but from the perspective of 
one who would want to do us harm, and to begin to determine what are 
the points of vulnerability.
  It may be, as Senator Coats indicated before, we are tremendously 
well defended to fight the last war, but some relatively weaker power 
than we may have the capacity to either break our communication systems 
or to shake up or incapacitate our information systems in a way that 
renders us as weak, as if we had suffered a major conventional military 
defeat.
  I want to thank the Senator for his support and for his right-on-
target comments and the thought-provoking words that he spoke. I thank 
the Senator.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank my friend.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Lieberman and 
Senator Coats for their leadership on this issue. The amendment they 
are offering, of which I am an original cosponsor, and which I worked 
with them on, will build upon the recommendations of the 1995 report on 
the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces, that there be 
a quadrennial defense review.
  Secretary Perry has decided to conduct that review. This would ensure 
that a number of important defense issues are addressed during the 
course of that review, and will establish a national defense panel that 
will play a key role in the defense review that would conduct its own 
forward-looking review of force structures.
  I am reminded, Admiral Owens, former Vice Chairman of Joints Chiefs 
of Staff, in his testimony on the eve of his retirement, and in frank 
discussions with many of us, stated that he believed that the 
acquisition of new platforms such as planes, ships, and tanks, are far 
less important than the incorporation of new, forward-edge technologies 
and information systems and the platforms already in the military's 
inventory. He even stated that such technologies would permit cuts in 
existing platforms, in terms of numbers.
  It is my belief and my hope that national defense panel would be able 
to chart a road forward for us that takes a look at, certainly, Admiral 
Owens' review, looks at contrary views to that, and makes some 
recommendations that would be a benefit to both the Congress and the 
administration. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I note there is a minute or two 
remaining. I add this word to everything that has been said. In one 
sense, Senator Coats said this is an attempt to liberate the process 
from the inevitable instinct that institutions have to continue down 
the road they have been down before and to make sure that the roads 
that we are heading down are the right roads. I am talking not just 
about the Defense Department, but our institution, as well.
  In one sense, what I hope will come out of this, both from within the 
Quadrennial Review and the National Defense Panel, is the continuing 
effort that certainly has been going forward under Secretary Perry with 
the various reforms to our procurement, the examination of ways in 
which to essentially outsource, to bring in, to privatize, to gain the 
economic benefits of these creative actions, to make sure that we have 
maximum dollars available to actually provide for our national defense.
  In one sense, what we are asking for here--and it is a big order--is 
to do what in the private sector we call re-engineering the 
corporation, to go back and ask, if a piece of paper of the 
organizational structure and system in front of us was blank, what 
would we write on the paper to make sure we were fulfilling the goals 
that we have? I understand that is a big order in a system as 
historically successful and complicated as ours.
  Essentially, what we are asking here in our national interest is 
that, together, we go back to first questions and say, what are the 
threats we are going to face to our security in the next century? If we 
could begin it all over again, how would we most effectively and 
efficiently meet those threats, and then to try, in the reality of the 
process, to get as close to that as we possibly can.
  Again, I thank all of those who have spoken. I think it has been a 
very thoughtful and constructive debate. I cannot thank enough the 
broad group of bipartisan sponsors of this proposal, including, 
particularly, the chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond, and the 
ranking Democrat, who I have occasionally burdened by referring to him 
as my mentor, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Nunn.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the Chair and 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 5 o'clock having arrived, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas, 100, nays, 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 169 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 4156) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S6835]]

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to 
lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity 
to give very special thanks to several individuals who worked very hard 
on the amendment providing for the study of alternative force 
structures for the Armed Forces. They spent many long hours amidst 
their very heavy workloads assisting their Senators and me in 
developing the concept of a bipartisan approach toward pointing our 
Armed Forces in the right direction for the 21st century.
  In particular, I would like to thank Ann Sauer of Senator McCain's 
office, Rick Debobes of Senator Nunn's staff, Sharon Dunbar, a 
Brookings Institution Fellow working in Senator Coats' office, Bill 
Owens of Senator Robb's office, and Stan Kaufman, a Brookings Fellow 
who works for me. Their dedication, expertise, professionalism and 
public service made me very proud to be associated with them. It has 
been a real pleasure being involved in such a successful bipartisan 
effort. In addition, I would also like to call out the exceptional 
responsiveness and quality advice we received from Charlie Armstrong of 
the Senate's Legislative Counsel's Office. When the staffers worked 
late into the evenings and over the weekends on this amendment, Charlie 
was right there for us.
  But I would like to convey particular thanks to John Lilley, a former 
staffer of mine who recently left my employ to move on to a situation 
which could provide him more time to spend with his young family. When 
I originally conceived the idea of the alternative force study, it was 
John who was instrumental in developing the detailed proposals we have 
been discussing today and in working closely with the staff of the 
cosponsors in achieving a common approach. I will miss John's good 
counsel very much, and I wish him well in his future endeavors.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold.
  The Senate will come to order, please.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside that I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4274

(Purpose: To provide for certain scientific research on possible causes 
   of Gulf War syndrome; and to provide military medical and dental 
benefits for children of Gulf War veterans who have congenital defects 
                       or catastrophic illnesses)

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

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4274.

  Mr. BYRD. 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 VII add the following:

     SEC. 708. RESEARCH AND BENEFITS RELATING TO GULF WAR SERVICE.

       (a) Research.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall, by 
     contract, grant, or other transaction, provide for scientific 
     research to be carried out by entities independent of the 
     Federal Government on possible causal relationships between 
     the complex of illnesses and symptoms commonly known as 
     ``Gulf War syndrome'' and the possible exposures of members 
     of the Armed Forces to chemical warfare agents or other 
     hazardous materials during Gulf War service.
       (2) The Secretary shall prescribe the procedures for making 
     awards under paragraph (1). The procedures shall--
       (A) include a comprehensive, independent peer-review 
     process for the evaluation of proposals for scientific 
     research that are submitted to the Department of Defense; and
       (B) provide for the final selection of proposals for award 
     to be based on the scientific merit and program relevance of 
     the proposed research.
       (3) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 301(19), $10,000,000 is available for research under 
     paragraph (1).
       (b) Health Care Benefits for Afflicted Children of Gulf War 
     Veterans.--(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary 
     of Defense, any child of a Gulf War veteran who has been born 
     after August 2, 1990, and has a congenital defect or 
     catastrophic illness not excluded from coverage under 
     paragraph (2) is eligible for medical and dental care under 
     chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, for the 
     congenital defect or catastrophic illness, and associated 
     conditions, of the child.
       (2) The administering Secretaries may exclude from coverage 
     under this subsection--
       (A) any congenital defect or catastrophic illness that, as 
     determined by the Secretary of Defense to a reasonable degree 
     of scientific certainty on the basis of scientific research, 
     is not a defect or catastrophic illness that can result in a 
     child from an exposure of a parent of the child to a chemical 
     warfare agent or other hazardous material to which members of 
     the Armed Forces might have been exposed during Gulf War 
     service; and
       (B) a particular congenital defect or catastrophic illness 
     (and any associated condition) of a particular child if the 
     onset of the defect or illness is determined to have preceded 
     any possible exposure of the parent or parents of the child 
     to a chemical warfare agent or other hazardous material 
     during Gulf War service.
       (3) No fee, deductible, or copayment requirement may be 
     imposed or enforced for medical or dental care provided under 
     chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, in the case of a 
     child who is eligible for such care under this subsection 
     (even if the child would otherwise be subject to such a 
     requirement on the basis of any eligibility for such care 
     that the child also has under any provision of law other than 
     this subsection).
       (c) Definitions.--(1) In this section:
       (A) The term ``Gulf War veteran'' means a veteran of Gulf 
     War service.
       (B) The term ``Gulf War service'' means service on active 
     duty as a member of the Armed Forces in the Southwest Asia 
     theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War.
       (C) The term ``Persian Gulf War'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 101(33) of title 38, United States Code.
       (D) The term ``administering Secretaries'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 1072(3) of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       (E) The term ``child'' means a natural child.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe in regulations 
     a definition of the terms ``congenital defect'' and 
     ``catastrophic illness'' for the purposes of this section.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last Friday, the Department of Defense made 
a remarkable admission--as a matter of fact, it was a startling 
admission--regarding the possible exposure of some gulf war veterans to 
chemical warfare agents resulting from the destruction of Iraqi 
ammunition bunkers. In a widely covered news conference, Department of 
Defense spokesman Kenneth Bacon announced that between 300 and 400 U.S. 
soldiers were within 3 miles of a bunker complex when it was destroyed 
in March, 1991 and may have been exposed to mustard gas and sarin. U.N. 
inspectors have confirmed that the bunker complex contained rockets and 
artillery shells containing the chemical nerve agent sarin and the 
blister agent mustard gas.
  Although none of these soldiers exhibited any symptoms associated 
with acute exposure to these chemical warfare agents, the Department of 
Defense announced that it would initiate research efforts into whether 
this exposure might have had long-term effects on the health of the 
soldiers.
  I am concerned about the possible harm that might have been done to 
these 300 to 400 soldiers. I am even more concerned that they may only 
be the first drop in the bucket. Between 80,000 and 100,000 veterans 
are on the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs 
registry for gulf war veterans who suffer from a wide range of 
disabling symptoms collectively known as ``gulf war syndrome.'' Some of 
these sufferers believe that they may have been exposed to chemical 
warfare agents while serving in the gulf and that this exposure may be 
the cause of their illness. DOD spokesman Kenneth Bacon alluded to the 
possibility when he noted that DOD is examining other reports and other 
bunkers for chemical weapons, so other groups of soldiers may also be 
at risk.
  Additionally, U.S. and coalition forces bombed many bunker complexes 
and chemical and biological weapons production facilities during the 
air war in 1991, so U.S. forces may have been exposed as a result of 
those actions as well. This is a very troubling situation.
  Mustard gas and sarin, the two chemical agents that were found in the 
destroyed bunker, are known, I am advised, to cause central and 
peripheral nervous system problems as well as to cause birth defects in 
children born to exposure victims. Medical research is needed to 
determine whether exposure to low levels of chemical warfare agents 
causes the symptoms described by gulf war veterans.

[[Page S6836]]

  Previous funding provided by Congress for medical research into gulf 
war syndrome, awarded only last Thursday by the Department of Defense, 
investigates the possible links between the illness and exposure to 
diesel fuel, pesticides and insect repellents, stress, disease, 
fatigue, and nerve agent pretreatment pills. Almost $1 million of the 
$7.3 million total is designated for a study of ill British veterans. 
None of the research funded thus far examines the link between the 
illness and the exposure to chemical warfare agents. The amendment I am 
offering would provide $10 million from within other defense medical 
research efforts for independent medical research into this issue.
  This amendment also provides relief to the most helpless victims of 
that war--the children of gulf war veterans with birth defects or other 
catastrophic illnesses that may be linked to their parents' exposure 
during the gulf war.
  Life magazine ran a story about these children in November 1995. On 
the cover--and here is a replica of the cover of Life magazine, which 
ran the story about these children in November 1995. On the cover is a 
picture of Jayce Hanson, with his father. His father is Sergeant Paul 
Hanson of Wheeling, WVA. Three years old, Jayce was born with hands and 
feet attached to twisted stumps. As those who observe the picture of 
the cover of Life magazine can see in the picture to my left, they will 
notice the hands that were attached to twisted stumps, and his lower 
legs, which were amputated in order to accommodate prosthetic legs. He 
also had a hole in his heart and suffers from a hemophilia-like blood 
condition and underdeveloped ear canals that cause frequent ear 
infections.

  Sergeant Hanson is still in the Army and is currently serving in 
Bosnia. During the Persian Gulf war, serving with the 16th Engineers of 
the 1st Armored Division, Sergeant Hanson was involved with bunker- and 
mine-clearing operations. He was not, apparently, involved in 
destroying the chemical weapons bunker identified in the Department of 
Defense announcement, but it is not known if other bunkers he helped to 
destroy contained chemical weapons.
  Mr. President, these children, like Jayce, suffer twice. First they 
are born with disabling and disfiguring birth defects, or suffer from 
invisible but equally devastating illnesses. Their parents may be 
suffering from gulf war syndrome. Then, when their soldier parent 
leaves or is discharged from the military as medically unfit due to 
illness, the family loses its health care. The insult added to the 
injury comes when the child is denied civilian health insurance because 
of its preexisting medical condition--its birth defect or illness.
  Even gulf war veterans still on active duty, with birth-defect 
children, face difficulties. They must seek appropriate medical care 
from civilian doctors through the Department of Defense's CHAMPUS 
program, which has a 20 percent copayment requirement. These children 
need continuing medical attention; they may need multiple operations or 
expensive medical treatments before they can function normally. The 
costs of this care can reach $100,000, and a 20 percent copayment, or 
$20,000, can be financially crippling for an enlisted serviceman.
  Sergeant Hanson's family has been helped by the Shriners 
organization, which has paid some of Sergeant Hanson's son's medical 
costs, but they were forced to seek assistance through the SSI program. 
Now Sergeant Hanson's combat pay for serving in Bosnia has pushed his 
income over the limit for SSI eligibility, so assistance is no longer 
available from that source.
  Mr. President, an enlisted service member should not have to rely on 
a welfare program or charity to meet the health care needs of his 
family, particularly when there is some reason to believe that the 
catastrophic health care needs of his child might have resulted from 
his military service. Jayce deserves better than that. His father is 
willing to risk his life in the service of his country. He should not 
be asked to risk the life and health of his son.
  The amendment I have offered would make these children eligible for 
care in the military health care system, which includes military 
hospitals and civilian practitioners through CHAMPUS, and would waive 
the 20 percent copayment requirement. The number of children affected 
is not large, according to the Department of Defense, but they are in 
truly desperate straits. Until research can prove that these children's 
maladies are not linked to their parents' service in the gulf war, they 
should be given the benefit of the doubt.
  President Clinton last month announced that he would seek legislation 
to provide benefits for children of Vietnam veterans born with spina 
bifida as a result of their parents' exposure to Agent Orange. Let us 
not wait 20 years before we acknowledge the incalculable difficulties 
faced by the children of the gulf war that may have resulted from their 
parents' service.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I had understood that the managers 
might be willing to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it appears this amendment has merit, and 
we will accept it.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Thurmond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before Senator Byrd leaves the floor, 
might I just take 1 minute? Is there a time limit on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, I congratulate Senator Byrd for bringing up this 
issue. Clearly, we have to come up with a better scientific answer to 
this problem than we have come up with. I just want to share with the 
Senator another research effort that is taking place. It is not in need 
of any of the resources he speaks of, but, in the State of New Mexico, 
there is a world renowned toxicology center that deals with what 
happens to our lungs depending on what we breathe. I have just recently 
learned that they are engaged now in an indepth research project with 
reference to the war that the Senator speaks of that centers around the 
kerosene heaters; that, in fact, they are going to be checking in depth 
to see if there possibly could be a relationship between some of the 
fume components and some injury to the pulmonary--breathing apparatus. 
I just wanted to share that as another proof of the fact that this is 
serious enough for our country to be involved in a very major way.
  Of course, the Senator has added one that has not been looked at at 
all, that has just recently come to light. I wanted to share that with 
the Senator and commend him.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico for his observation and his sharing of this information with me. 
I thank him also for his expression of support for the amendment.
  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. Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by our 
colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. We need to do all we can to 
deal with gulf war syndrome. We have seen reports, just in the last 
week, about new discoveries that have been made relating to the Iraqi 
chemical stockpile and the possibility of that being connected to some 
of the terrible problems that our service people are experiencing.
  We all know all the problems with Agent Orange and how long we spent 
on that one. I think it is time to come to grips with this, and I 
believe the Byrd amendment is a positive step in the right direction. 
So I urge our colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia for his support.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid 
aside temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

[[Page S6837]]

                           Amendment No. 4275

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to take such actions as 
    are necessary to reduce the cost of renovation of the Pentagon 
              Reservation to not more than $1,118,000,000)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Bradley, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4275.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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:

       On page 398, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC. 2828. RENOVATION OF THE PENTAGON RESERVATION.

       The Secretary of Defense shall take such action as is 
     necessary to reduce the total cost of the renovation of the 
     Pentagon Reservation to not more than $1,118,000,000.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that would have the 
effect of reducing the $1.2 billion cost of renovating the Pentagon by 
$100 million. I send this to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator 
Bradley, and Senator Feingold. This would be the first reduction in 
funds for this very expensive project since its inception half a decade 
ago. It would amount to about a 10-percent reduction in the total.
  Mr. President, dramatic shifts have occurred in geopolitical terms 
during the past decade, and these shifts have caused fundamental 
changes in our defense posture. As we have realigned our defense 
programs to meet changing needs, the funds for many projects have been 
reduced and eliminated.
  Despite significant reductions in defense spending, the Pentagon 
renovation project has enjoyed a steady flow of cash. In my view, the 
time has come to impose greater financial discipline on the Pentagon, 
just as the Pentagon has asked other military organizations to be more 
frugal. Too many of our military members are forced to work and live in 
unhealthy and unsafe conditions. We need to ensure that the renovation 
of the Pentagon does not jeopardize funding for other more urgent 
needs.
  Many things have changed in this world since this 15-year-long 
project began, and I believe the Pentagon renovation plans can be 
better aligned with today's new realities. There are many factors which 
ease the impact of a reduced renovation budget. For example, the 
Department of Defense is downsizing. As the civilian military work 
force is steadily reduced, demands for work space have eased as well. 
Construction costs in the Washington, DC, area have fallen. Contract 
costs for the renovation have turned out to be considerably lower than 
originally estimated.
  On one construction contract alone, for example, costs were 36 
percent less than anticipated. Also, modern communications technology 
makes it unnecessary to have large staffs at the Pentagon to manage 
dispersed operations.
  Mr. President, in 1990, Congress transferred responsibility for the 
operation, maintenance, and renovation of the Pentagon from the General 
Services Administration to the Secretary of Defense. Congress 
recognized that the serious structural problems in the Pentagon 
building had to be addressed without further delay, and we took this 
action to get the long overdue project moving forward.
  Congress earmarked $1.2 billion that the DOD would have paid to GSA 
in rent for the next 12 or 13 years as a breakeven way to pay for the 
renovations. The $1.2 billion was not based on any projected cost of 
renovation, it was simply a sum that was available. This seemed to be a 
logical way to fund the renovation, so Congress provided the Department 
of Defense great flexibility in managing the project.
  Mr. President, this $1.2 billion cap people need to understand, 
Senators need to particularly understand that this $1.2 billion cap 
which has been in the law for several years now does not include all 
the renovation costs. In fact, there are four categories of expenses 
which add substantial amounts to the total.
  For example, the Pentagon estimates that the cost of buying and 
installing information management and telecommunications equipment will 
be another $750 million. This amount is not part of the $1.2 billion 
cap. Neither is the heating and refrigeration plant, the classified 
waste incinerator, the furniture or the 780,000 square feet of leased 
space for people who have to be moved during the renovation itself. The 
figure of $1.2 billion is, therefore, misleading. The expense of 
renovating the Pentagon easily will exceed $2 billion.

  Last year, the Senate did pass essentially this same amendment that I 
am offering today to cut the Pentagon renovation expenses by $100 
million. During the conference, unfortunately, the conferees agreed to 
eliminate that requirement and, instead, they directed that the 
Department of Defense review the renovation plans and recommend some 
cost saving options.
  This review has been underway, I am informed, since March of 1995. 
The well-publicized review was supposed to produce a report which was 
expected in February of this year. We did not receive that report. On 
the 5th of June, the Armed Services Committee staff did receive a 
single-page memo which states that the Department has found a savings 
of $37 million and will continue to look for more.
  A reduction of $37 million out of a total of $1.2 billion is not what 
I consider an aggressive response to our call to reduce costs, and the 
one-page memo is not what I consider a thorough analysis of options for 
reducing costs. Over the past 6 years, we have dramatically reduced 
defense spending and manpower without once reducing the funds for the 
renovation of the Pentagon.
  Fifteen months ago, the Pentagon itself publicly announced its intent 
to reduce the cost of the project. The Department identified a new 
spending target only after last year's threat of a reduced cap and 
after I announced at the Readiness Subcommittee markup on April 30 that 
I would offer this same amendment this year if I was not convinced by 
the Pentagon's long overdue report.
  Mr. President, that long overdue report is still overdue. I am not 
convinced that $37 million is the best the Pentagon can do in the way 
of savings. The only way in which we can force additional savings is to 
keep up the pressure and insist on more in the way of accountability 
for this very, very large project. That is what this amendment does. 
Americans have been asked to tighten their belts. They expect no less 
from their Government. The Pentagon needs to be expected to do the 
same.
  I yield the floor.


               Yeas and Nays Vitiated--Amendment No. 4274

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order on 
the yeas and nays on my amendment be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 4275

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to say to the Senator that we 
think he has a meritorious amendment, and we will accept it.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the Bingaman 
amendment and, as I have already done, I urge the adoption of the Byrd 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the Bingaman 
amendment, the Senate will proceed to vote.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4275) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 4274

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from West Virginia.
  The amendment (No. 4274) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.

[[Page S6838]]

  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I believe Senator Bingaman has an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4276

            (Purpose: To repeal the permanent end strengths)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4276.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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:

       Strike out section 402 and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:

     SEC. 402. REPEAL OF PERMANENT END STRENGTHS.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 691 of title 10, United States Code, 
     is repealed.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 39 of such title is amended by striking 
     out the item relating to section 691.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment that I have just sent to 
the desk would propose to repeal a provision that was adopted in last 
year's defense authorization bill. That provision makes it the 
permanent law of the land that we will have at least 1,445,000 active 
duty military personnel, including at least 495,000 in the Army, at 
least 395,000 in the Navy, at least 174,000 in the Marine Corps, and at 
least 381,000 in the Air Force.
  That is a permanent provision of law that we added last year. The 
provision states these ``end strengths . . . are the minimum strengths 
necessary to enable the armed forces to fulfill a national defense 
strategy calling for the United States to be able to successfully 
conduct two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies.''
  The provision gives the Secretary of Defense only half a percentage 
point leeway in meeting these minimum active duty levels. Even if the 
Secretary of Defense, in any given year, persuades Congress to go to a 
lower end strength level, under the provision which is now permanent 
law, the following year the Secretary is again bound to the 1,445,000 
end strength level unless he again asks and again Congress agrees to 
approve a waiver.
  Mr. President, it is just bad law. The committee has included a 
provision in the bill before us that makes it minimally tolerable in 
the coming year by giving the Secretary of Defense not half a percent 
leeway but instead a 5 percent leeway for each of the services. The 
committee report points out that ``the committee has found that one-
half percent flexibility is not enough, is insufficient to prevent the 
services from taking short-term management actions that may adversely 
affect service members, solely to meet the assigned end strengths at 
the end of the fiscal year.''
  Mr. President, every year since I came to the Senate, section 401 of 
the defense authorization bill has established a maximum active duty 
end strength for each of the services. That seemed to me to make some 
sense. Last year however was the first time in memory that Congress 
established a minimum active duty end strength as well as a maximum.
  In this coming year the minimum and maximum will be identical, or 
almost identical, for three of the services, the Army, the Marines, and 
the Air Force. This makes no sense from the point of view of running a 
personnel system.
  This provision in permanent law is not just bad personnel policy; it 
is fundamentally flawed in its ties to the Bottom-Up Review and the 
need to ``successfully conduct two nearly simultaneous major regional 
contingencies.'' This is the only place that I am aware of where the 
Congress has chosen to memorialize the Bottom-Up Review in permanent 
law.
  During the debate we just had a few minutes ago on the Coats-
Lieberman amendment, which mandates a new strategic review to replace 
the Bottom-Up Review, we heard a great deal of criticism of the Bottom-
Up Review and its underlying assumptions. I agree with that criticism.
  How then, assuming that criticism is accurate--and the vote certainly 
would reflect the Senate agrees that the criticism is valid--how do we 
justify leaving this provision in title 10 of the United States Code 
the permanent law of the country, when we know that next year, whoever 
is President, the Bottom-Up Review will be overtaken and the two major 
regional contingency assumptions will be history?
  Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that the Republican 
Congress and the President are fundamentally in agreement on the total 
resources this Nation will devote to defense in the coming years.
  Let me just show a chart here that makes that point very 
dramatically, I believe. I know we hear a lot of rhetoric on this 
Senate floor about who is stronger, which of the parties has the 
strongest position with regard to our national defense, but this chart 
makes the case, I think very persuasively, that spending between fiscal 
year 1997 and 2002 under the President's budget as scored by the CBO 
and spending under the final Republican budget resolution is 
essentially indistinguishable.
  The total spending increase over the 6 years proposed by the 
Republicans is $18.6 billion, with $11.3 billion of that coming in the 
first year. When you go through all the different numbers, Mr. 
President, it is clear that we have less than a 1 percent increase 
difference. This is the dire emergency that we have heard discussed in 
reference to spending. It turns out that President Clinton was 99 
percent right on defense spending levels according to the Republican 
defense spending plans, if not according to their defense oratory.
  Mr. President, the central justification which has been made for much 
of the additional money that is being added to this bill is that the 
Pentagon is underfunding modernization of our military. The bill that 
we have before us adds about $7.7 billion in procurement, about $3.7 
billion in research and development. We have heard often during debate 
on this bill about the Joint Chiefs' $60 billion target for procurement 
and how short the bill is in meeting that goal, even with the 
additional money that we are adding in.
  The fact is that the Republican outyear defense budgets will never 
reach that target either unless there is a significant additional 
drawdown in military personnel on the order of several hundred thousand 
active duty personnel. The fact is the Republican deficit hawks who put 
a premium on balancing the budget by 2002 have won the battle, the 
budget battle, over the Republican defense hawks. But they have 
generously granted a 1-year reprieve, one last spending spree to the 
defense hawks in an election year.
  Mr. President, this does not make sense. You cannot say that you are 
going to balance the budget, that you are going to increase funds for 
modernization and for quality of life and for readiness, and you are 
going to keep the active duty force level at 1,445,000.
  The Republican budget resolution does not add up, nor, for that 
matter, does the President's defense budget. What is going to give, I 
predict, whoever is President, has clearly got to be the force 
structure level.
  Mr. President, I favor modernization of our Armed Forces. I favor 
quality housing for our troops. I favor providing full pay raises to 
our forces. I favor long-term research to help keep our forces at the 
forefront of this ``revolution in military affairs.''
  I favor investments in the mobility of our forces and maintaining the 
readiness of our forces, although I welcome the efforts that have been 
made to look at tiered readiness.
  But for this Senator, all of these priorities--modernization, pay, 
housing, readiness, mobility and research--all of them take precedence 
over the size of the force structure within constrained budgets. The 
Nation needs a well-equipped and well-paid and well-housed and highly 
mobile military to deal with the reduced threats of this post-cold-war 
world. It will be a smaller force than the Bottom-Up Review force. We 
will not have 1,445,000 active duty personnel.

  We all know that that is where the Pentagon is headed next year, 
whoever is elected this fall. Under the bill that

[[Page S6839]]

we have before us, we are going to put off until next year, perhaps 
even the year after, any serious discussion about future force 
requirements. We are going to put off any serious discussion about 
necessary trade-offs between force structure and modernization and 
readiness within budget constraints. This year this bill proposes one 
last shopping spree before we cut up the credit cards. That is not what 
we should be doing.
  Mr. President, by passing my amendment and by repealing the 
provisions from last year's authorization bill that mandates the 
1,445,000-person active duty force in permanent law, the Senate would 
spur a debate on these trade-offs. If we do not repeal the provision 
this year, we will be doing it next year or the year after. It is only 
a matter of time. I urge the adoption of my amendment. Mr. President, I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment.
  This amendment would repeal the end strength floors enacted in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. The goal in 
establishing these floors was to prevent the Department of Defense and 
the administration from sacrificing active duty strength below levels 
necessary to successfully prosecute two major regional contingencies in 
favor of other budget priorities.
  Earlier this afternoon, we debated and adopted an amendment offered 
by Senators Lieberman, Coats, McCain, Nunn, Lott, Robb, Thurmond, and 
others which called for a commission to review the national security 
strategy and to recommend a new, requirements-based force structure 
plan. I support that amendment and I think that repealing the active 
duty end strength floors before such a force structure review is 
completed would be premature.
  Mr. President, just to set the record straight, I want my colleagues 
to understand that the uniformed personnel chiefs have not opposed the 
end strength floors. The floors are set at the level requested in the 
administration's Bottom-Up Review. This number represents the end state 
of the defense downsizing. No military or civilian leader in the 
Department of Defense has requested more reductions to our active force 
during testimony before our committee. Section 401 of the defense 
authorization bill we are now debating provides the services the 
flexibility which the uniformed personnel chiefs requested.
  Any further reductions to military strengths must follow 
congressional concurrence with a new force structure review and a 
comprehensive revision to the roles and missions of our Armed Forces. 
Repeal of the active duty end strength floors in the absence of such 
reviews and recommendations would be foolhardy and ill-advised. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. President, I thank the chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am persuaded that my amendment would 
substantially improve the bill if it were adopted. I think the 
legislation in the bill, the permanent law we are dealing with, is not 
appropriate for the time we live in and not appropriate for the budget 
constraints that we realistically have to deal with. I am also well 
aware that in this even-numbered year, it is very difficult to get the 
necessary majority to vote for an amendment such as the one I have 
proposed here.
  One of the real fears of many in this body, I am sure, is that they 
might in some way be viewed as being soft on crime or weak on defense. 
I do not in any way think that my amendment is a signal that a person 
is weak on defense. I think it is a sign that a person is realistic 
about the resources that we have to devote to our national defenses, 
and that both the President and the Republican leadership here in 
Congress have committed to devote to our resources over the next 
several years.
  I think we would be well off to get on with the repeal of these 
minimum force provisions that are in permanent law. I recognize, 
though, that with the opposition of the leadership of the Armed 
Services Committee on this issue, that we would not prevail with this 
amendment. For that reason, I will withdraw the amendment and keep it 
for another day when we will have a greater opportunity to prevail with 
it.
  At this point, I withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 4276) was withdrawn.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able Senator from 
New Mexico for withdrawing the amendment.


                    NATO Security Investment Program

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as we consider the fiscal year 1997 
Defense Authorization bill, I would like to take this opportunity to 
point out our financial and security investments in NATO.
  Too often, Mr President, we in Congress find ourselves in the 
position of having to justify to our constituents the rationale for 
providing foreign assistance, particularly during a time when budgetary 
constraints are hindering what we can do right here in our own home 
towns. For this reason, foreign spending often has become negative and 
is distorted in the public eye. While this is an understandable 
concern, few recognize just how much the United States benefits from 
its financial investments and active participation in foreign activity. 
The NATO Security Investment Program is a model that readily defies 
this negative image and I would like to highlight this for my 
colleagues today.
  The NATO Security Investment Program, which sustains the NATO 
Alliance facility operations and technical requirements, supports U.S. 
security and economic interests, while providing an impressive 
commercial return on our investment. Where the United States has 
invested approximately $1 billion in the NATO Security Investment 
Program over the past 5 years, U.S. businesses have enjoyed a total of 
$1.7 billion in high-tech contracts. During this same time period, a 
$25 million investment of U.S. dollars yielded $100 million worth of 
military construction contracts which were awarded to U.S. companies. 
In fact, nearly 40 percent of all NATO high-tech and communications 
projects are awarded to U.S. contractors.
  This current rate of return continues to grow and benefit the U.S. 
economy. Right now, there are 12 NATO contracts under way which total 
$73 million in returns for U.S. companies, significantly impacting five 
States. In the upcoming years, there will likely be 10 NATO projects 
awarded to American contractors in five States which will total nearly 
$169.8 million.
  Since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the NATO alliance has 
undergone fundamental and significant changes as its strategy has 
shifted from a stationary defensive position to a lean, responsive 
body, capable of handling a variety of challenges. With the drawdown 
and overall mission redefinition complete, the NATO alliance has 
embarked upon several projects and operations that will refocus NATO's 
efforts throughout the European theater. These operations need our 
strong financial support.
  Opposition remains, however, as many continue to argue that with the 
end of the cold war should come a decreased need for U.S. military 
dollars abroad. This position is readily refuted, when one considers 
the truly surprising financial opportunities and benefits that exist 
for our economy within these operations.
  We must continue to recognize the tremendous tangible rewards that 
are generated by our leadership and participation in such foreign 
investment. These figures clearly reflect the direct benefits and 
future potential of our involvement in NATO, not only in terms of 
security but in economic terms as well. I would encourage my colleagues 
to observe and remember the many benefits the United States is afforded 
through our involvement in the NATO alliance.


                           Amendment No. 4277

  (Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate relating to the apparent 
      inappropriate use of Federal Bureau of Investigation files)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside.

[[Page S6840]]

  The clerk will report the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . (a) The Congress finds that--
       (1) Federal Bureau of Investigation background files 
     contain highly sensitive and extremely private information;
       (2) the White House is entrusted with Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation background files for legitimate security 
     purposes but it should ensure that any files requested are 
     needed for such purposes and that these files remain 
     confidential and private;
       (3) the White House has admitted that the personnel 
     security office headed by Mr. Livingstone inappropriately 
     requested the files of over 400 former White House pass 
     holders who worked under the past two Republican Presidents;
       (4) Craig Livingstone, the director of the White House 
     personnel security office, has been placed on paid 
     administrative leave at his own request;
       (5) the President has taken no action to reprimand those 
     responsible for improperly collecting sensitive Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation files; and
       (6) the taxpayers of the United States should not bear the 
     financial responsibility of paying Mr. Livingstone's salary.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that the President should 
     terminate Mr. Livingstone from his position at the White 
     House immediately.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I do believe it is appropriate for us to 
discuss this issue at this time. It is very obvious, in my opinion, and 
I think the opinion of many in this Chamber, that something unusual and 
inappropriate and----
  Mr. FORD. No more votes tonight.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, could we have order in the Senate, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. GREGG. More than 400 names, with FBI files, have been requested 
by the White House, pursuant to what appears to be the request of the 
director of the White House personnel security office. In this 
instance, this is clearly a violation of a proper handling of the most 
sensitive information about individuals who have worked for the 
Government or who may be politically active.
  It appears from all press reports that these files represented 
primarily Republican members or Republican individuals who identify 
themselves with the Republican Party. The fact is that has created a 
clear concern amongst not only those people whose files were requested, 
but I think amongst anyone who is interested in the proper functioning 
of a democratic Government.
  The issue here is, at what point can the police powers of the State 
be used for purposes of investigation which exceed the legitimate 
purposes of the White House or some other agency of the Government? The 
issue here involves the question of, when does the police power of the 
State, when abused, significantly abridge the rights of individuals and 
citizens of the country, because this information was collected under 
the authority of the police power, the FBI. But how information 
regarding 400 individuals, many of whom had not been involved in any 
form of White House access for years, could be legitimately requested 
by the White House raises very significant and serious questions. There 
is no doubt, really, that what happened here was some sort of, at the 
minimum, fishing expedition for information, and one suspects and is 
concerned that the goal and the purpose of that fishing expedition was 
not involved in the necessary function of access to the White House, 
because a large number of the people on this list involve people who 
had no active involvement with the White House and who, clearly, had no 
potential future active involvement with the White House. And, 
therefore, to obtain this sort of information on them makes no logical 
sense in relationship to the purpose of the security office of the 
White House. So what you have is a very serious issue of the proper 
usage of information, which had been developed by the FBI, or the 
police power of the State, in the functioning of the Government.

  It has become pretty obvious from this exercise that at least one 
individual is primarily culpable for this action--this action which is 
not defensible. In fact, the White House has said it was not 
defensible. In fact, the White House has used terms such as 
``inexcusable.'' I believe the President has even used that term. 
Clearly, the Chief of Staff has used that term. But that individual 
continues to be paid by the taxpayers of this country. He was not asked 
to leave. He is on self-requested administrative leave, I believe. So 
your tax dollars, my tax dollars, the American people's tax dollars, 
and even the tax dollars of those 400 folks whose files have been gone 
through in this manner, are being used to fund the salary of this 
individual. That seems, to me, to be not only incredibly ironic, but 
extraordinarily inappropriate and inconsistent with the policy stated 
by the President when he was running for this office.
  When the President was running for office, if people will recall, 
there was an incident that occurred at the State Department that 
involved the review of the passport file of the then-candidate, 
Governor Clinton. At that time, he stated with considerable and, I 
think, appropriate outrage that had such an incident occurred, or 
should such an incident occur during his administration, that person 
would be--the person responsible for that action--quickly terminated.
  Well, not only has the person responsible not been quickly 
terminated, but the person responsible is now actually being paid by 
the taxpayers of this country his full salary. That is wrong.
  I think it is wrong on all sorts of levels, but it is wrong on the 
issue of logic. It is wrong on the issue of fairness to the people 
whose files were gone through, but, most importantly, it sends the 
wrong signal on a matter of this seriousness. He should have been fired 
outright, as I think the President suggested when he was running for 
office. There is no question about that. That would have been the 
proper course of action. But, at the minimum, he should not have been 
able to request administrative leave. He should have been put on leave 
by this White House, without pay. What has happened, however, is just 
the opposite. He was put on leave at his request, with pay, an action 
which one has to question rather significantly.
  Now, let us review again what happened. There were 400 names--maybe 
more, we are not absolutely sure yet--which were requested by the 
director of the office of White House personnel security. Now, the 
director of White House personnel security has the obligation, under 
the White House rules, to manage who has access to the White House. 
Traditionally, that post has been under the direction of career 
individuals, people who specialize, through their activities in the 
Government, in the management of security for the White House. That has 
been the traditional individual who has managed that office.

  However, with the ascension of President Clinton to this White House, 
there was an individual appointed as director of the office of 
personnel security named Mr. Livingstone. It has been reported, rather 
widely, that Mr. Livingstone's basic experience was as a political 
operative within the campaigns of several different candidates--the 
President's candidacy, obviously, but I believe even the Vice 
President's candidacy at one time, and I believe he also worked for 
former Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro. His basic purpose was to manage 
political affairs and security within the campaign structure. So he was 
moved into this position of director of the White House personnel.
  It has, again, been reported that, in that position, he reported to a 
series of people within the White House, many of whom also managed 
political activity within the White House. That, of course, raises the 
question of, what is the proper way to manage this office? But that is 
a secondary question. The primary question was, why would this 
individual have requested these 400 files on these 400 individuals, 
almost all of whom are Republicans?
  FBI files, by the way, are very unique files. They are not a credit 
union file. They are very serious reviews of a person's activities, 
going into all sorts of background checks that are extraordinarily 
substantive. The FBI, if nothing, is one of the most thorough 
investigative organizations in the country.

[[Page S6841]]

 They are not a credit union report. In fact, FBI files are so 
seriously viewed that when I, as a Member of the Senate, asked to look 
at an FBI file of a person nominated for a position, which is subject 
to senatorial review--for example, say, the Surgeon General--before I 
could look at that file, I have to request that file of the FBI, the 
FBI has to clear that request through the White House, and then a White 
House individual, who is designated by the FBI--and they may actually 
work for the FBI; I am not sure which, because sometimes I think it 
differentiates--in any event, a person from the White House physically 
comes to my office, or I go to their office, and sits with me while I 
review that file. And I am only allowed to review that file by myself. 
I am not allowed to make any copies of anything in that file. I am not 
allowed to in any way reproduce any part of that file. While I review 
that file, sitting directly across from the table is this handler of 
that file--usually a White House individual but I believe a detailee of 
the FBI at the White House.

  So it is not a casual event that somebody looks at an FBI file. It is 
not a casual event at all. It is a very seriously viewed event. It is 
that way because these files are so in depth and because they involve 
such a totality of information about the person whose name is in that 
file. These same types of files are no different from the one that I 
must sit in an office and review by myself with a member of either the 
FBI or the White House present. These same types of files are the exact 
types of files which were sent down to the White House en masse--400 of 
them approximately--and kept there under the auspices of the Director 
of White House Personnel for Security, Mr. Livingstone.
  You would ask: What would he do with those 400 files as security 
officer? Logically, if somebody was going to come into the White House, 
the White House has every right to say, ``We have to check out who that 
person is. We have to know who that person is. We have to know their 
background for security reasons.''
  So they have every right to an FBI file on individuals who are 
seeking access to the White House. But these 400 names were not people 
who had asked to get into the White House. That is the point. They had 
not asked for it. They were not seeking access. Many of them never 
expected to return to the White House in their life even for a tour, I 
do not think. Some of these 400 people were just folks who had a job 
there when Ronald Reagan was President or when George Bush was 
President; did their job, and had gone home. Some of them were national 
figures of fairly significant notoriety. But the one thing they had in 
common was that almost all of them were not seeking access to the White 
House.
  In fact, one of the interesting questions here is, ``Well, where did 
the list of 400 names come from if they had not actually asked to get 
into the White House?'' Nobody appears quite clear on that. There was 
an indication, initially made by Mr. Livingstone, that the 400 names 
came off the list that he had been supplied by the Secret Service. But 
the manner in which these names were listed and the manner in which the 
files were requested is inconsistent with the Secret Service's filing 
system. They do not have a list of names which go from A to G--which 
are the names involved--that meets the identification or would be 
listed in the manner in which they are requested by the White House 
security. They do not have them in that form. So it was not the Secret 
Service which had brought the list of names forward. Rather, it was 
very clearly some other manner in which these names had evolved.
  So, as a practical matter, what we have is a situation where a group 
of names were requested, 400 names with their FBI files, and the 
responsibility for that request--which was totally inappropriate, which 
was out of the normal mode of operation of the White House security 
office, and which was inconsistent with the rights of these individuals 
whose names were in these files --was under the auspices and management 
of the Director of White House Personnel and Security, Mr. Livingstone.
  For the moment all roads, therefore, lead back for this rather 
incredible act of disregard for the constitutional rights of American 
citizens to Mr. Livingstone. And one must conclude that when the 
President said--or his spokesperson, Chief of Staff, Mr. Panetta, 
said--it was an inexcusable act, that it was just that and therefore it 
should not be excused. What do you do when you have an inexcusable act? 
You do not excuse it. You do not reward it. You do not say, ``Well, we 
are going to continue to pay you. You did an inexcusable act, and we 
are going to continue to pay you.'' No. You should fire the person, and 
you should terminate their pay. But in this instance that has not 
happened.
  So the taxpayers I believe have a right to ask: Why has this 
individual not been terminated? Why has his pay not been terminated? 
What is it that this individual has done which justifies him to 
continue to be paid by the taxpayers of this country? Even if you are 
not going to fire him, you should at least put him on leave without 
pay.
  I suppose by some contorted manner of logic you could argue that he 
should not be fired. It would be inconsistent with what President 
Clinton had originally suggested during his campaign for the 
Presidency. But let us assume that was the decision that was made. But 
clearly, if he is going to be put on leave, he should not be paid.
  I am not the only person that has reviewed this. In fact, I have 
sensed that on the other side of the aisle there is a fair amount of 
consternation about what has happened here, and I believe that is 
reasonable because there are good and decent people who are concerned 
about the status of the Constitution; many. All of us in this Chamber 
are. Some have reviewed and evaluated this situation and have said, 
``Listen. This individual should be fired.'' I believe the Senator from 
Illinois has made that statement on occasion, and I believe the Senator 
from Vermont has also.
  So it is not a partisan position. It is simply a logical position 
that, if someone has acted in this manner, they should not be rewarded 
with taxpayer dollars.
  Do we have the capacity in this bill to terminate him? Do we have the 
capacity to fire him? Do we have the capacity to say he should not be 
paid as a matter of law? Well, we might, I suppose. But it would be 
very hard and complex, and it would be tortuous to do that.
  So rather than make it an amendment that would have the force of law, 
I have simply suggested that as a sense of the Senate we go on record 
and say that we feel that this individual should no longer be paid by 
the taxpayers of the United States. We are basically suggesting that 
what is right should be done. And it is not unreasonable to seek to do 
what is right.
  This is such an obvious point--that what is appropriate and right 
almost should go unsaid. It should not have to be said. There should 
not have to be a sense of the Senate on this point. The President 
should have just done it just like he suggested that he would during 
the campaign. But in this instance that has not occurred.
  So I believe it is appropriate that we take up this sense of the 
Senate. As a result, I have brought it forward at this time. I 
recognize the consternation this may create, and I certainly wish to 
apologize to the leader of the Armed Services bill, the Senator from 
South Carolina, who I greatly admire, and, as does everyone in this 
institution, hold in absolute esteem. But the vehicle to bring this up 
is the only vehicle that is on the floor. And if it were not brought up 
on this vehicle it would not be able to be brought up probably for 
weeks--certainly until after the Fourth of July recess, and maybe not 
even then. Thus, I feel that I should go forward at this time. And 
thus, I have.

  At this point I would ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, if the Senator will withdraw it for just 
a moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. 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.

[[Page S6842]]

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Amendment No. 4277, Withdrawn

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in order to move the process along, and in 
order to help the Senator from South Carolina, whom I greatly admire, I 
have decided at this time to withdraw my amendment. I ask that the 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 4277) was withdrawn.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, one, I compliment the Senator from New 
Hampshire for offering this amendment. This amendment deals with the 
issue of Filegate. It is not related to the Department of Defense bill. 
The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, 
requested that he set this amendment aside or withdraw it so we can 
move ahead with the Department of Defense bill. I understand Senator 
Thurmond's request. Senator Gregg has assented to that request. But I 
think his amendment is an important one and it is a timely one.
  There were very serious actions or deeds taken by officials in the 
White House that are very troubling. Over 400 FBI files were requested 
and received by White House officials, almost all of which are on 
Republicans who previously worked in the White House. They were 
requested in December 1993 and beyond so, in other words, all those 
officials had left the White House at least a year before, some quite 
some time before that. Yet, FBI files were requested as if for access 
to the White House, when those individuals did not need access to the 
White House.
  That is a serious problem. It may have been a crime. I remember one 
individual became somewhat famous during Watergate. Chuck Colson went 
to prison for misusing or disclosing an FBI file. FBI files are very 
privileged information. I know in my tenure in the Senate I have only 
seen them a few times, primarily on judges for confirmation or possibly 
U.S. attorneys or marshals or something.
  But I remember, every time we had an FBI file brought to my office, 
it was for my eyes only. While I had access to that FBI file I did not 
Xerox it, I could not make notes from it. I was not entitled to take 
that file home. I was not entitled to keep it in my office alone. 
During access to that file, there was an FBI agent present or a Senate 
staff person who had a particular clearance. So in other words, in the 
Senate we really protect FBI files, as we should. The files are locked 
up. They are not opened for staff. They are not opened for rummaging 
through the files. As a matter of fact, it is against the law to do so.
  The Privacy Act, which was passed post-Watergate, was passed to 
protect individuals, to make sure that those files would not be misused 
or abused. That information should be kept secret for very limited 
access purposes, to make sure that individuals that have very high 
security operations or needs would be cleared, to make sure there are 
no real problems.
  This is maybe the most serious abuse of FBI files in history. It 
remains to be seen. The Senator from New Hampshire is saying that the 
individual primarily responsible for that, Mr. Livingstone--he is still 
on salary, still on paid vacation, I guess. He is on leave but he is 
being paid. That is troubling. The Senator had a resolution that said 
he should be terminated. He should be terminated. I know I have heard 
that not just from Republicans, but Democrats alike.
  So, Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from New Hampshire for, 
one, bringing this issue to the floor of the Senate. I note there will 
be hearings tomorrow dealing with this issue. Mr. Livingstone, and 
others, will be testifying before Congress. This is important. It is 
vitally important that Congress get to the bottom of it, find out the 
information. But in the process, it is troubling to think that at least 
one of the individuals that was responsible for it is not only on 
leave, but he is also on paid leave, that he is on a paid vacation, I 
guess, at taxpayers' expense.

  So the Senator from New Hampshire, I think, had a resolution that if 
we vote on--I might mention he has withdrawn it so the Senate can 
proceed. I ask our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to return 
to the floor so we can conduct business on the DOD authorization bill. 
He has withdrawn it so we can proceed. He agreed to the request by 
Senator Thurmond, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, to move 
forward.
  I respect the Senator from New Hampshire for his willingness to do 
so. I respect the Senator from South Carolina for his desire to move 
this bill forward. He also has a right to reoffer it at a different 
time, just as the Senator from Arkansas has for an amendment dealing 
with pharmaceuticals. He offered it last week; he withdrew it. He has a 
chance to offer it again. That is his right. It may be germane to this 
bill to some extent but somewhat limited in its germaneness. It is my 
hope, too, that we will pass this bill.
  So, again, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his action in 
bringing this issue to the floor of the Senate and also for his 
willingness to withdraw the amendment so we can proceed and move 
forward with this bill tonight and hopefully make significant progress 
on this bill tonight.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I also want to thank Senator Gregg. As a 
member of the Armed Services Committee obviously interested in moving 
this defense authorization bill forward, I appreciate Senator Gregg's 
willingness to withdraw the amendment. But I guess I join my colleague 
from Oklahoma in stating that it is a perfectly justifiable amendment 
given the circumstances of the situation.
  I think a lot of us are feeling we do not quite understand what is 
going on down at the White House. The person in charge of the travel 
office, who is not political, gets fired because they want to put 
somebody who is political in the office; but the person who is 
political does not get fired. It seems to be kind of a double standard 
and a disconnect.
  So Senator Gregg is pointing out something that I think needs to be 
addressed. I just appreciate the fact that he is willing to allow, in 
deference to the Senator from South Carolina and those of us who feel 
it is important to go forward with the defense authorization bill, the 
opportunity to move forward with this legislation.
  But what is happening here is nothing more than what has happened to 
us. We have tried to move relevant legislation forward, and the Senator 
from Massachusetts and others insist on adding nongermane, nonrelevant 
amendments to every bill that the Republicans put on the floor. So, 
whether it is the minimum wage or whether it is the Glaxo issue, or 
whatever, there is a whole series of nongermane, nonrelevant amendments 
being offered to bills that everybody agrees need to be moved 
forward. So I think Senator Gregg is perfectly within his rights in 
offering that amendment. I think it is an appropriate subject for 
debate and discussion. I do commend him for recognizing the importance 
of the defense bill and being willing to withdraw it at this time.

  I hope, Mr. President, that Members on the other side of the aisle 
will not now take the opportunity to continue the practice of offering 
nongermane bills, and I hope Members on this side of the aisle would 
also honor that from this point forward. It is a little tit for tat 
here. We spent 3 weeks, or a little less than that, trying to resolve 
an issue of a nongermane, nonrelevant amendment being offered on bill 
after bill after bill. We finally had a tortuous unanimous consent 
agreement--it probably set a record for the number of words or pages in 
that unanimous consent agreement--finally worked out by the new 
majority leader and the minority leader. Maybe the best thing we can do 
here is to agree to both move forward with the business at hand and 
then allow Members to take up these other issues.
  Certainly the Senator from Massachusetts has the right to address the 
issue of minimum wage, but it ought to be done on a relevant bill. 
Certainly the Senator from Arkansas has the right to address the issue 
of the Glaxo-GATT matter, but it ought to be done on a relevant or 
standalone basis. Certainly the Senator from New Hampshire has the 
right to address what I

[[Page S6843]]

think is one of the most fundamental ethical issues that we are dealing 
with at this particular time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I also want to commend the Senator from 
New Hampshire for offering that amendment. I know it is not germane to 
the defense authorization bill, yet I think it is important that we 
begin to discuss some very serious issues that I think deserve to be 
debated and discussed here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  I was just made aware that the other partner in crime or potential 
partner in crime, Mr. Marceca, just announced that he has made 
available 300 additional files, in addition to the 481; there are now 
300 additional files, some of them national security files, that he has 
now made available and has just showed up on an AP wire. This issue 
continues to get broader and broader and broader and more and more 
files trickling out. Frankly, not much has been said here on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate one way or another.
  I can say this is an important issue. This is an important issue 
beyond the politics of it. It is an important issue of who has access 
to secure documents? Who has access to national security documents? And 
what are they doing with those documents? How to we treat people who do 
things with those documents? Who ordered them to do it? Who else knew 
about it? I like to think that Mr. Livingstone, maybe, was just a wild 
guy acting on his own, and Marceca was another one of these wild men 
who was off doing his own thing. I know a little bit about how things 
function in this town, and there are very few things that are run 
independently.
  Now we are seeing this list getting broader and broader and 
information trickling out. We still have 2,000 pages under subpoena in 
the House that the Executive Office is claiming privilege over. By the 
way, they claim ``privilege'' over the original 1,000 documents, of 
which this file information was uncovered. If they claimed that under 
the original 1,000, what is in the 2,000 they are holding on to? Maybe 
some of these national security documents that are now being discussed 
or mentioned in these 2,000 documents being held by the White House 
under claim of Executive privilege.

  I commend the Senator from New Hampshire for bringing this issue to 
the floor, for talking about the firing of Mr. Livingstone, but I do 
not think we want to make Mr. Livingstone to be the heavy here. The 
fact of the matter is this was a man who was trusted by very high-up 
people in the White House. George Stephanopoulos said this is a man who 
``knows how to get things done.'' If he only knew. Or maybe he did 
know. I do not know.
  Those are the kind of things I think we should be discussing here and 
we should be investigating here. I think the Senator from New 
Hampshire's resolution was, frankly, pretty mild. I suspect if we had a 
public vote on that resolution--and the reason we are not having a 
public vote on that resolution is because, obviously, the other side 
does not want to debate or discuss this; they put in a quorum call, 
which means we have a time out and we cannot go back into play on the 
field here to move forward with our business until the other side 
allows us to go back into play. This institution would have been shut 
down the rest of the night as long as the Senator from New Hampshire's 
amendment was on the floor because they do not want to talk about this. 
They certainly do not want to vote on this. I suspect if there is a 
public vote on this, which is the way we do things in the U.S. Senate, 
it would pass 100 to 0. I do not think there are too many who would 
stand up and defend the conduct of Mr. Livingstone. I do not think the 
issue is that there are too many people over there that want to defend 
Mr. Livingstone.
  The issue is that a lot of people do not want this to be the 
discussion on the U.S. Senate floor. I do not blame them. This is not a 
pretty subject, but it is a serious matter. It is a very serious 
matter, and it is not a political matter. Yes, there are political 
implications, I am not naive to that. But this is a very serious breach 
of security matter. The American public must have faith in their 
Government's ability to keep classified information just that, 
classified, and away from people for using it for dirty tricks or just 
for their own jollies, as may be the case here.
  I do not know, maybe it was two rogue guys who were just having fun 
or maybe it was a bureaucratic snafu, where someone just made a 
mistake. But if someone just made a mistake, and I am the general 
counsel, and I am looking through these documents that were released 
just a few days ago, and I see in here that we have 481 documents that 
we should not have had sitting at the White House for a year at that 
time, when I am reviewing the subpoena request from the House and I see 
this, and I claim Executive privilege over this information for a year, 
then somebody else had to know something. It is not just these two 
folks running around having fun in the basement of the White House. 
Someone very high up said, ``Yes, we know these documents are here. In 
fact, we will let them sit here for another year, and we are going to 
claim privilege over these documents.'' That someone, at least tacitly, 
is condoning what they are doing in the general counsel's office.
  The American public has a right to know that people in the White 
House or in the Congress are not playing fast and loose with the 
private lives of ordinary American citizens. At the very least, that is 
what is going on here. I heard the Senator from Oklahoma talk about 
when he has reviewed FBI files. I have reviewed FBI files as a member 
of the Armed Services Committee. They do bring the files and they sit 
there with you while you review them. You cannot take notes, you cannot 
make copies, you cannot do anything with those files. If you have a 
question, you ask the question of the individual and they track down 
the answer for you. They do treat these things as very confidential 
because there is information in there that is not substantiated. It is 
a lot of hearsay in many cases. ``A said this about B, who said this 
about this person.'' There is all sorts of stuff in there, and a lot of 
it is unsubstantiated, and probably some of it is false. It is a 
complete record. It is unedited. To have those laying around the White 
House or someplace for 2 years, 1 of those 2 years the information 
letting us know that those documents were there, was under subpoena, 
and they held it, that is serious.

  To suggest the Senator from New Hampshire should not be able to come 
up here and debate that subject and get a decision on the part of the 
U.S. Senate when the evidence is very clear of what is going on here--
we will have testimony tomorrow by these two gentleman who are going to 
tell their story, or maybe tell their story. We will see. I do not know 
whether they will tell their story. I hope they do. They will be there 
tomorrow. Maybe after we hear the testimony of Mr. Livingstone, maybe 
there will be a resolution that will be bipartisan that calls for his 
resignation or dismissal. Somehow, I think we need to send a message 
out of the floor here of the U.S. Senate that this is a serious matter 
that should be treated as such by a President, who I think right before 
the election said he would have the most ethical administration in the 
history of this country. Do you want to talk about a promise? That is a 
great promise. I will leave it to you to determine whether you think he 
has kept that promise, whether you believe this administration has been 
the most ethical administration in the history of this country, whether 
you believe it is ethical for members of the administration to gather 
FBI files on, conveniently, almost all Republicans and have them laying 
around the White House--private, confidential files, classified files--
for 2 years.

  As I said, that is only a third of the papers that have been asked 
for. There are still other documents out there that we are waiting to 
look at, which are being protected by the White House, which I suspect 
they consider more politically damaging. I think we have an obligation, 
not from a partisan perspective, but from the perspective of getting to 
the bottom line of what is going on here. Maybe all of those 2,000 
pages will show the snafu, will exonerate the President, will exonerate 
everyone up and down the chain of authority there, that this was, in 
fact, what they are claiming--a little mistake. It would take a lot of 
paper--much more

[[Page S6844]]

than 2,000 pages, in my opinion--to do that, but maybe it will.
  So be it. But we should have that information. What is hanging over 
this investigation right now is a cloud of potential criminal activity. 
The White House knows if there is potential criminal activity discussed 
in those documents, they cannot claim Executive privilege. It is clear 
that they cannot claim Executive privilege if there is illegal activity 
involved in those documents.
  So let us wait and see. Let us wait and see how this is going to play 
out. If there is any problem I have with the resolution of the Senator 
from New Hampshire, it is that it targets one person. I would suspect 
that what we are going to see here, as this issue develops, is that we 
are going to see everyone turn in their guns on Mr. Livingstone and Mr. 
Marceca. They are going to have horns and a little beard, and they are 
going to be the scapegoats, the bad guys. Everybody is going to point 
the finger at them and try to make them out to be the villains and the 
guys who did all the bad things here, and all of the rest of us are as 
pure as the wind-driven snow, and we did not know what the bad boys 
were doing all this time.
  That is what, I guarantee you, will be the line. Once we find out 
this was not a snafu, that this was, in fact, a pretty bad happening, 
we will then turn from the snafu to the scapegoat. And they will 
stonewall and stonewall as long as they can, putting those two guys out 
front to take the fall.
  Well, let us see what this body is going to do about it. Let us see 
how bipartisan we can be to get to the truth on something that has 
serious, serious liberties implications. Let us see how bipartisan we 
are going to be. Let us see how much we really want to find out the 
truth, or how much we want to protect for political purposes.
  I am willing and anxious to see the bipartisanship on this 
investigation. I am anxious to see resolutions brought to the floor 
that have bipartisan support, which say that we need to get to the 
bottom of this, and we need to speak as one voice in the Senate and 
speak up for privacy rights of individuals and against unethical 
behavior in the White House.
  When I start to see some of that happening, then maybe we will not 
have to have these little breaks in time here on the floor. Maybe we 
would not have to have a shutdown like the one that occurred this 
afternoon, the shutdown of this bill, which is a very important bill to 
this country, the defense authorization bill. Maybe we will not have to 
see a shutdown. Maybe we will see true cooperation for the betterment 
of this country, instead of a continual, well, let us try to put this 
behind us. There is an investigation going on, and let us not deal with 
this. Let us not talk about it. Let us not put it before the American 
public so that they know what the heck is going on. Let us not tell 
them what is really at stake here, and what classified files really 
mean.

  Mr. President, I think we do need to talk about that. I think the 
American public needs to know what is involved in these documents, what 
is involved in the law. I hope that Members who certainly know the acts 
better than I do, who are on the Judiciary Committee, will come here 
and actually talk about that, talk about what is involved. I know many 
Senators have done so. I think it needs to be explained more.
  This is a serious problem, and the Senator from New Hampshire, who, I 
would say, somewhat courageously stood up and took the risk of getting 
some missiles fired at him--which was done--did so. But I think he did 
so to let it be known that this is not an issue that we believe is 
exempt from discussion here on the Senate floor during this very 
important time.
  So I am anxious to see what happens tomorrow. And maybe depending on 
what happens tomorrow, we may be back here on the Senate floor with 
further discussion and possibly other kinds of resolutions that express 
the sense of the Senate, or even do more than that, with regard to this 
situation. It is one that I hope we can deal with in a bipartisan 
fashion, as I said before. If the Senator from New Hampshire actually 
had a chance to have a vote on his resolution, I think if the vote was 
public, it would be 100 to 0--even if it was private, it would be 100 
to 0. That is how most Members feel about it.
  Most Members feel very uncomfortable about this. I am not asking them 
to defend this. There is a reasonable side to say that the jury is 
still out, and let us wait and see what happens, let us not draw 
conclusions from everything. I think, certainly, from the evidence 
revealed so far, we have some very serious problems here that need to 
be addressed, and I hope this body will be as active in pursuing that 
oversight responsibility that we have as the House of Representatives 
Government Oversight Committee.
  I want to commend my colleague from Pennsylvania, someone whom I have 
known for a long, long time, Bill Clinger, the chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee over in the House of Representatives. I 
had the honor, as a college student at Penn State, to work as an intern 
for Bill Clinger. He is someone who I think, frankly, is seen in the 
House as being beyond partisanship. Bill has been a stand-up guy, who 
is not engaged in partisan activities. I think maybe more than any 
other Member over there, he has the ability and legitimacy to take on 
this issue in a very fair-minded way. I think he has done that. Bill 
Clinger does not pursue things unless he believes there were some 
misdeeds. He pursued it, and he pursued it honestly and forthrightly. 
He did not make partisan statements during that time. He stuck to his 
guns, stuck to the facts, and he has done an outstanding job. I am only 
disappointed that he is not running for reelection. I hope he does so, 
and that he finishes his term in the same manner that he has conducted 
himself--keeping to the facts, keeping on this case, and following 
through to its conclusion.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, normally they serve sandwiches and coffee 
following a political speech. We have had four of them. Although the 
Senate is not a Republican precinct convention, and it would violate 
the rules to serve sandwiches and coffee, one would almost expect that 
following the speech we have been treated to.
  I come from ranching country in western North Dakota. I am thinking 
of the old phrase, ``All hat and no cattle.'' It is kind of interesting 
to listen to this discussion. The last speaker just told us that he has 
registered his verdict on a whole series of issues, and now tomorrow he 
is going to a committee hearing to hear the evidence. That is a new 
approach, I guess, to making judgments about things.
  One hour ago this Chamber was filled with Senators. In these six 
seats sat the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the ranking 
member of the Armed Services Committee, and their staff. We were voting 
on defense authorization amendments. Senator Byrd offered an amendment. 
Senator Bingaman offered an amendment. We had other amendments. We were 
working on a series of amendments on the defense authorization bill. 
Some of us thought that those who said they wanted to finish this bill 
were serious and we were interested in getting the work of the Senate 
done and offering amendments to this bill.
  Then a Senator, perfectly within his rights, jumped up and offered an 
amendment that had nothing at all to do with this bill but had instead 
to do with an issue dealing with the White House. In four subsequent 
speeches, four Members of the Senate used the time of the Senate 
sufficiently so that now nearly 2 hours later the Senate is vacant. 
There will be no more business tonight. There will be no further votes 
tonight. There will be no further work done on the serious business of 
the defense authorization bill.
  But the accomplishment was that four relatively political speeches 
were made on the floor of the Senate. It is an election year. It is 
June. The election is in November. We understand it all. I am not 
divergent about all of this. I understand. Everyone has the right to do 
this. But you do not have the right, it seems to me, to complain that 
you are not getting anything done if you are causing the circumstances 
to avoid getting things done.
  Last week on this bill we were treated to an amendment--and I think a 
several-hour debate--about whether Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the

[[Page S6845]]

White House should be opened or closed; a very significant military 
issue apparently. Or was it an issue that had nothing at all to do with 
this bill? I think it was the latter.
  The issue has been raised about files at the White House. I would say 
this--I think the President would say this if he were standing on the 
floor of the Senate: If anyone has been guilty of wrongdoing, if laws 
have been violated, if people have abused their privileges with respect 
to those files, they deserve to be fired--end of story; no excuses. As 
all my colleagues know, we have an independent prosecutor, an 
independent counsel, now at the request of the Attorney General 
conducting an investigation at the White House, hopefully as we speak. 
If it is discovered that anyone has abused those files, or misused 
information in the files, or requested files that were inappropriate, 
or done anything in any way that would lead the American people and 
Members of Congress to believe that they have not behaved properly, I 
fully expect this President to discharge them and to do so immediately. 
But that is not what this is about.
  There is one common element between all of the Members who spoke--
myself, my friend, the Senator from Kentucky, and the Senator from West 
Virginia. There is one common element that binds us all together 
tonight; that is, none of us know the facts. We are going to. But we do 
not know because there is an independent investigator trying to 
understand what those facts are. If ignorance is bliss, this place must 
be ecstatic on this issue. None of us understand the facts. Get the 
facts, get them quickly, understand them, digest them, and then take 
appropriate action.
  But that is not what this was about. This was about something much 
different from that. We have for a number of months here in the U.S. 
Senate seen an agenda in the Senate that wants to stay away from things 
that really affect families and their circumstances as they try to work 
every day, do their business, and take care of their needs.
  That is not what the agenda has been on the floor of the Senate by 
the majority party. One aspect of being in the majority is that you 
control the agenda on the floor of the Senate. You decide what comes up 
and when it comes up. The fact is the majority party did not want the 
minimum wage to come to the floor of the Senate.
  Some of us suggested the last time there was an adjustment in the 
minimum wage was in 1989. Those who work at the bottom rung of the 
minimum wage economic ladder, 40 percent of whom are the sole 
breadwinners of their family out working hard trying to make ends meet, 
those people have not had an adjustment in 6 years. Some said maybe it 
is time for at least a modest adjustment on the bottom. We have folks 
on the top getting adjustments worth millions. They downsize, fire 
20,000 people and get a $4 million raise; that is, the folks at the top 
of the economic ladder.
  We ask whether it was not reasonable that the folks at the bottom of 
the ladder, the kind of people that I referred to in some letters I 
used the other day who work at the bottom of the ladder for minimum 
wage--the woman who told me that they had lost everything in a fire in 
their trailer house. They had sickness and problems in their family. 
She works. Her husband works for minimum wage. She says,

       I don't know how I am going to tell my two sons who want to 
     play summer baseball that I do not have the $25 that it 
     requires as a fee to sign them up let alone buy them baseball 
     gloves.

  That is the daily story of people at the bottom of the economic 
ladder.
  We said that we would kind of like to see an adjustment after 6 
years. But they do not want that on the floor of the Senate.
  So for 4 months we have been wrestling with the notion of whether we 
could bring to the floor of the Senate a modest adjustment that helps 
those at the bottom of the economic ladder. For 4 months we are the 
ones that have advanced this legislation saying that we ought to do 
something about health care.
  We finally passed the Kennedy-Kassebaum health care bill that says 
you can take your insurance with you when you move from job to job so 
you are no longer held prisoner in a job because you are going to lose 
your insurance. It says you are not going to be able to be denied 
insurance because of preexisting conditions. It is the right thing to 
do. But do you know what? That is being held hostage because we have 
people saying we are not going to let you pass that bill that millions 
of American families need unless you agree with us on these things 
called medical savings accounts, and if you do not agree with us, as 
far as we are concerned, they say, we are going to hold that bill 
hostage.
  So they would deny the opportunity to get a minimum adjustment on the 
minimum wage at the bottom of the economic ladder, deny the opportunity 
of families to have the kind of health coverage and protection that 
will be allowed them under the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. What they say 
is, Well, we want tax cuts. So we say to them, All right, you want tax 
cuts. We think we ought to reduce the deficit first. Let us reduce the 
deficit first and then let us talk about tax cuts. They say no, they 
cannot do that. We want tax cuts. We want to cut Medicare to give you 
tax cuts. We said, Well, look, is there any common ground at all? How 
about agreeing with us on this? How about agreeing with us that you 
will limit the tax cuts to those families earning $100,000 a year or 
less? They said no, we will not agree to that at all.

  We had a vote, a partisan line vote. We lost. We say, Well, what 
about at least agreeing with us that you limit the tax cuts to those 
families making under a quarter of a million dollars a year and less? 
No, we will not agree to do that. We insist people above a quarter 
million dollars a year get a tax cut as well. All right, we said. At 
least could you agree that at a time when we are up to our neck in debt 
trying to reduce the Federal deficit, at a time when you are saying 
that 60,000 kids, all of whom have names, aged 3 and 4, living in homes 
of low income and in difficult circumstances, you are going to say to 
them we cannot afford to keep you on the Head Start Program, Timmy, 
Tommy, Jane, we are going to kick you off the Head Start Program, a 
program that we know works, a program that we know improves their 
lives; cannot we at least agree when you are suggesting that we will 
not give tax breaks to families whose incomes are over $1 million a 
year, at least limit the tax cuts to families $1 million a year and 
less? Do you know what? The majority voted no. Said, no, we will not 
limit it. Why? Because the package of tax cuts that they truck into 
this Chamber is a package of tax cuts that have very, very generous 
plums to some of the richest, the wealthiest families in this country, 
at a time when we have a deficit problem, at a time when we are telling 
children that we cannot afford them on the Head Start rolls, at a time 
when they are saying that it ought not be an entitlement that a child 
be eligible for Medicaid, at a time we are saying that it ought not be 
an entitlement for a poor kid to get a hot meal in the middle of the 
day at school because we cannot afford it. But we can afford to give a 
family that has $10 million a year in income a big tax cut?
  That is the agenda that they do not want discussed. Instead, what 
they want to do is talk about extraneous issues, nongermane amendments 
offered to this bill and that bill in order to take us over into this 
political corner or that political corner.
  I have been trying to offer an amendment for some long while that I 
would have hoped one of these days I could get passed. It defies 
imagination that we actually say to companies in this country, shut 
your doors, close your company, fire your workers, and move overseas 
and hire a bunch of foreign workers and ship your goods back to 
America. Guess what? If you do that, we will give you a tax break.
  Yes, that is right. That is what our Tax Code says. Move your plant 
overseas. Get rid of your American workers. Hire foreign workers. Make 
the same product and ship it back, and we will pay you to do it--$2.2 
billion in 7 years. We will pay you to do it. But you think we can get 
that amendment, the amendment that shuts down that insidious tax break, 
that actually pays companies to move jobs overseas, do you think we can 
get that back in this Chamber to get rid of that tax break? No, because 
that is not part of the agenda. You see, that tax break inures to the 
largest multinational companies

[[Page S6846]]

that no longer say the Pledge of Allegiance, that are international 
corporations, and whatever they want--if they have a headache, we want 
to treat them. If they have a shoulder ache, we want to give them an 
aspirin. That is the attitude of the majority party.
  Let me conclude by saying there will not be any wallflowers in this 
Senate, in my judgment, on the issue of protecting the confidentiality 
of the American people with respect to any files, FBI files or any 
files. If someone is determined to have broken the law, to have 
violated procedures, to have in any other way abused the privileges of 
the information contained in those files, then they ought to be fired 
and fired instantly.
  I will say this about President Clinton. Some might say they like 
him, some do not like him. It seems to me that this President has done 
exactly what he was required to do when this latest issue developed, 
and that is to have his Attorney General immediately investigate, and 
she decided she wanted the independent counsel to do that 
investigation. Wherever that investigation leads, this President will, 
in my judgment--I am confident he will--take immediate action to 
resolve it.
  Not only that, but this administration has taken action now with 
respect to the files that are used for background checks, has taken 
steps that are unprecedented, that have never been taken before in this 
country to safeguard that information. But there is not disagreement 
between any of us and any others in this Chamber about whether this 
ought to be investigated. Of course, it should, and it is.
  There is not disagreement, I hope, about the fact that none of us 
know what has happened, including the President at this point. When 
this investigation tells us what has happened, then I would expect the 
President to be the first to take action, appropriate action and 
decisive action, so the American people can have confidence in this 
process.
  I finally say this. I hope that as we meander through this process 
this year in the Senate and talk about the agenda we want to pursue, 
the agenda is one that finally begins to address some of the things we 
are concerned about, and those things are the things that families talk 
about at night when they sit down for supper and talk about their lot 
in life. How is it going? How is the job? Did you get downsized? Are 
you age 50 and just lost your job, have no more health care? You 
expected your retirement to be there, but somebody took it. How about 
Junior? Junior is getting out of college. Will Junior have a job? And 
how about the daughter-in-law who is working on minimum wage and has 
been there 4 years and has not had a change in the minimum wage?
  Those are some of the issues we ought to deal with, appropriate 
issues, issues that respond to the needs of families who, when they sit 
down and talk about their lot in life, worry about these things.
  So, Mr. President, I started by suggesting there should be sandwiches 
and coffee following the other four speeches. I suppose some would 
suggest that they could now be served as well. It was my intention, 
however, to have talked about the things that I think we should be 
addressing in the Chamber of the Senate.
  Everyone has a right to offer an amendment even if it is nongermane. 
Everyone has a right. The Senator who offered this amendment early this 
evening is a good friend of mine. I like him a lot. He has the right to 
do that. But another Senator stood up a little later and complained 
about those who offered nongermane amendments; you cannot do that.
  I do not understand this. They offer nongermane amendments, and then 
they stand up and complain about people who offer nongermane 
amendments? Walk around with a mirror, for gosh sakes. Either we are 
going to finish this bill and stop this political nonsense, or we are 
not. If we have people who want to just play political games on this 
bill, then this bill is never going to get done. My preference would be 
we decide let us advance down the road, do the amendments, get rid of 
this bill, deal with the bill appropriately.
  This is a very large piece of legislation with very important issues 
involved in it, but it is not going to help this Senate to do what we 
just saw happen about 2 hours ago. It essentially shut down the 
process. There will be no further work tonight, and that puts us behind 
rather than ahead. I hope that this is not the way we will begin a new 
set of leadership and begin dealing with the issues that all of us know 
this Senate has a responsibility to deal with in the weeks and months 
ahead.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, a long time ago, I was a Republican, 
and I was brought up in a Republican family. It was not the kind of 
Republican family which is very much respected these days because it 
was referred to as ``Rockefeller Republicanism,'' and that is about the 
worst thing you can say about a Republican because this primarily came 
from my Uncle Nelson, who liked to get things done for the people of 
New York State and also for the country. He was also Vice President. He 
was very active. He was constantly worried about housing, and he wanted 
to get things done.
  I grew up, and I was not very political, was not very interested in 
politics. I was interested mostly in Japanese language and Chinese 
history and all kinds of things which were not very germane to 
politics. But I got into politics the way people really should get into 
politics, and that is because they started a program. I remember 
President Eisenhower used to call it ``the Kiddy Corps,'' and I was 
still in Japan at the time. It was actually the Peace Corps they were 
talking about starting, and I was in Japan when President Kennedy was 
elected. He was my first vote. I came back in time to vote for him and 
not for Nixon, but that did not make me a Democrat. It was just that 
Kennedy was obviously going to be a better President than Nixon.
  I did not care that much about politics. Then I got into the Peace 
Corps, and I saw what was going on in the rest of the world. And then I 
joined a program which really was started by the Democrats also, in 
this case, President Johnson, along with Bobby Kennedy, that now is 
called VISTA.
  As the Senator from Kentucky knows, I went to West Virginia in 1964, 
and I was a registered Republican. Now, I had been voting Democratic, 
but politics did not mean that much to me. What West Virginia taught me 
and what the people of West Virginia taught me was that getting things 
done for people that have a variety of types of problems, much like the 
Senator from North Dakota was talking about, was what really interested 
me. I really cared about that.
  I did not know I had really cared about that. I was in my 
midtwenties, but that was something that really grabbed me, and all of 
a sudden being able to speak Chinese or talk about Japanese history or 
whatever did not seem quite as important to me. So I made a decision to 
get into politics. At that point, I had been, in effect, a Democrat for 
6 years.
  It is very interesting, this whole day and particularly this last 
couple of hours helps me understand again and again and again and again 
why it was I became a Democrat, because the complaint that you 
constantly hear about Republicans and about us in Congress in general, 
but the Republicans run the Congress--they run the House. They run the 
Senate. We just had an election of the new majority leader. He has a 
new team, all in power, all set to go. And the question that is always 
raised is: Why don't they ever talk about things which affect average 
people's lives?
  I think that is a pretty fair question, because they do not. It is 
the fact that the Senator from New Hampshire got up and started 
rambling on about something he did not know anything about, or when he 
withdrew the amendment the Senator from Pennsylvania, who represents 
people who have all kinds of problems in Allegheny County, PA, and the 
counties around there, and the steel towns and coal towns--used to be 
coal towns and steel towns--lots of unemployment, lots and lots of 
problems, that he went on for a long period of time after the amendment 
had been withdrawn. And, as the Senator from North Dakota said, it shut 
down the Senate. We were on an authorization bill. We had the Senator 
from South

[[Page S6847]]

Carolina who certainly, shall we say, has some experience around here 
and has put in some time around here. I assume he wants to get that 
done. It is called defense authorization, one of the most important 
bills that we have. Now that is dead and gone.

  Yesterday, I gave a speech about things we have to take up in this 
Congress, that we have to solve, that people expect us to solve. We are 
the only people who can solve it. It cannot be done by Executive order. 
It cannot be done by the States. It can only be done by us. I do not 
know exactly how many legislative days we have left, but it cannot be 
very many, 35, 40, 45 days? If this is the way we are going to spend 
our time, then I can understand why the American people say those 
people up there do not get anything done. But, even more, it helps me 
understand why it is that I am a Democrat, because Democrats keep 
worrying and coalescing and forming coalitions and meeting about how 
they were to get things done for average working families.
  Raising the minimum wage is one of them. What is the minimum wage 
worth today? About $3.10 in purchasing power, compared to 20 years ago. 
That would affect, I say to the Senator from Kentucky, one out of every 
four workers in West Virginia, working people in West Virginia--not 
people on welfare, people who work every day who could go on welfare 
and who, in many cases, would do better to go on welfare in terms of 
their own financial self-interest because they would get health care, 
they would get lower rent, they would get food stamps. But no, they are 
interested in something called pride. Welfare is down in West Virginia; 
work is up in West Virginia, as it is in a lot of the country.
  We should be doing something about raising that minimum wage to 
encourage people to stay off welfare and to continue working. Some of 
us spent a lot of time fighting for something called the earned-income 
tax credit. I would say to the Presiding Officer, if the earned-income 
tax credit was combined with the minimum wage, increased as we did it 
for George Bush in 1991, with bipartisan support--I do not know what is 
so different about today--then the great majority of American families 
would move out of poverty. That may not be of interest to the majority 
party but that is of enormous interest to me and makes me very proud 
about being a Democrat, and very concerned about doing something about 
these problems. The politics part is not important but the inactivity 
part is important, the fact that nothing is getting done here, week 
after week after week after week after week.
  Tomorrow or the next day in the Finance Committee, on which I serve, 
they are going to take up Medicaid and make it into a block grant. The 
majority party is going to pass that. It will pass the Senate Finance 
Committee because they control that. They control the floor. It will 
pass. It will happen. And then we are going to see the results.
  But we have done nothing, and we have been talking about it for 
months, about the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. The Senator from Kansas, with 
all of the things she has done for her people and this country over all 
of these years, I would think there would be some on the other side who 
would really want to make certain that, when she left, she had her name 
on the only piece of health care legislation that passed in the first 4 
years of the Clinton Presidency. But I am now beginning to be convinced 
that the majority party does not want to see that happen. I really do 
not understand that. That is very hurtful to the people I represent, 
many of whom are Republicans, many of whom are Democrats. Why do they 
not want to do that?

  It is because of a single insurance company that had a tremendous 
amount of influence on a previous Member, so it was laid out there, and 
the House Republican leadership is very strongly attached to that 
concept, and it is called MSA's, medical savings accounts. It is very, 
very effective for savings and for all kinds of things for people who 
are rich and healthy, and does absolutely no good to people who are 
average working families and are not wealthy, and are not necessarily 
healthy.
  Why can we not pass the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill? It passed the Senate 
100 to nothing. Why can we not pass that? Nothing takes place around 
here. That is why the American people say, about the majority party, 
why do they not ever talk about things which relate to my life? And 
they do not. We get, instead, diatribes on political things. People 
fire up from the other side--and we do from our side, presumably, from 
time to time--but they fire up. For anything that is remotely political 
they are on their feet and ready to go. I am so sick of telling the 
story of how many hearings we have had on Medicare and Medicaid as 
opposed to Whitewater, I will not even do it.
  We are not discussing the things that affect the American people and 
there are some of us here who desperately want to do that because we 
come from States where that kind of discussion, and the action that 
comes from it, is needed.
  The Senator from Kentucky represents three States: western Kentucky, 
central Kentucky, and eastern Kentucky. And eastern Kentucky is just 
exactly like my southern West Virginia, and they need a lot of help. 
They have a whole lot of people in eastern Kentucky who do not have any 
insurance, cannot possibly afford it because they have something called 
a preexisting condition, or they are laid off from one job and they 
would like to be able to carry their insurance to another job. But they 
cannot do it now. Except that Nancy Kassebaum changed that and made it 
possible for them to do it in a bill which passed this body 100 to 
nothing. Now we cannot get it passed. We cannot get it taken up. We 
cannot get it passed: MSA's.
  I do not understand that. And I regret that. I regret that we have a 
chance to lift people out of poverty through something called welfare 
reform and we do not seem to be able to get to it. I resent that we 
have a chance to lift people out of poverty by increasing the minimum 
wage--which is no shocking deal. It was not in 1991, when George Bush 
passed it and signed it. Business people were not screaming and 
yelling, or if they were they stopped pretty quickly because nothing 
much happened except people began to get some more money. Now, 
actually, we are offering a smaller amount of money increase. It is 
exactly the same that he offered, $4.25 to $5.15 in 2 years--wow, that 
is really throwing money around--but of course that is worth much less 
today, what we are offering, than the same amount of change back in 
1991.
  People criticize us because we are not getting things done. I want to 
say, some of us are trying. Some of us are really trying. We care about 
what happens in the Persian Gulf. We care what happens in health care. 
We care what happens with average working families. We care what 
happens with pension security. We care what happens with job 
instability. We care what happens with minimum wage. We care what 
happens with welfare reform. We care what happens with neglected and 
abused children. We care about what happens with a whole lot of things 
which people pay us a very good salary to come up here and do something 
about--and we are not doing it. I think the principal reason we are not 
doing it is because the proclivity of the majority party, there is some 
kind of a gene or something, or computer chip stuck into that majority 
party, that causes them to always aim, go cutthroat for politics. The 
meanest politics I have heard in the 12 years I have been up here, 
frankly, have come from the other side.

  Am I out of place with what I said? I have no idea. It is what I 
believe. I know I am a Democrat, but I do not really care about that so 
much because I know why I am here in the Senate. I am here to help 
average people, people I represent and the people we all represent. 
Nobody has to represent millionaires, they represent themselves. Our 
duty is to help people who need wise public policy. That is our job, 
and we are not doing it. It is sad, and it is shameful.
  Mr. FORD. 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. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S6848]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________