[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6907-S6934]
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.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this armed services authorization bill 
is so very important. This lays the groundwork for the strength of our 
defense and the support of our armed services.
  So I agree with my colleague from South Carolina, the chairman of the 
committee, and the ranking member, Senator Nunn, that we must get on 
with the debate. I think if both sides will work together and determine 
what are relevant amendments, then hopefully the cloture vote will be 
in order tomorrow and we can finish this bill.
  It is unnecessary for us to drag out this bill that will support our 
armed services, and most especially in light of what happened 
yesterday. I think it would be a tragedy if we did not finish this 
bill, and in fact we are going to finish this bill. We are not going to 
leave to go on a recess if this bill is not finished.
  I hope everyone will be committed to that.
  I would just take a slight issue with my colleague, Senator Nunn, 
talking about the stalking bill, because this is something that we have 
been trying to put forward for all the women and children of America.
  It has been held up by Senator Lautenberg because he wants to add 
another amendment, and I think that the talking part of this 
legislation applies to military bases and military personnel and 
therefore is quite relevant. I hope that we can give this protection to 
the women and children that are in our military, and I hope that 
Senator Lautenberg will also take this opportunity to take his hold off 
the whole bill so that we could send it to the President before we go 
into recess.
  I appeal to Senator Lautenberg to allow that to happen, and then I 
will certainly work with him to allow some vehicle for him to have an 
airing on the amendment that he wants to put forward. But there is no 
reason to hold up the ability for us to give all the protection in this 
country to the women and children who are victims of stalking, 
harassment, and threats when we are going on a recess. It does not make 
sense, and I hope Senator Lautenberg will hear our pleas, let this go, 
and let us work with him to get a vehicle for his amendment.
  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.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4293

   (Purpose: To authorize funding and multiyear contracting for the 
                 Arleigh Burke class destroyer program)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to start on a series of 
cleared amendments so that we can make progress on this bill, and I 
would like to start by offering, on behalf of Senator Cohen and Senator 
Lott, an amendment that would make technical corrections to section 124 
of the bill regarding Arleigh Burke class destroyers to make its intent 
more explicit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Cohen, for 
     himself and Mr. Lott, proposes and amendment numbered 4293.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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:

       Strike out section 124 and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:

[[Page S6908]]

     SEC. 124. ARLEIGH BURKE CLASS DESTROYER PROGRAM.

       (a) Funding.--(1) Subject to paragraph (3), funds 
     authorized to be appropriated by section 102(a)(3) may be 
     made available for contracts entered into in fiscal year 1996 
     under subsection (b)(1) of section 135 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 
     104-106; 110 Stat. 211) for construction for the third of the 
     three Arleigh Burke class destroyers covered by that 
     subsection. Such funds are in addition to amounts made 
     available for such contracts by the second sentence of 
     subsection (a) of that section.
       (2) Subject to paragraph (3), funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 102(a)(3) may be made available for 
     contracts entered into in fiscal year 1997 under subsection 
     (b)(2) of such section 135 for construction (including 
     advance procurement) for the Arleigh Burke class destroyers 
     covered by such subsection (b)(2).
       (3) The aggregate amount of funds available under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) for contracts referred to in such 
     paragraphs may not exceed $3,483,030,000.
       (4) Within the amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 102(a)(3), $750,000,000 is authorized to be 
     appropriated for advance procurement for construction for the 
     Arleigh Burke class destroyers authorized by subsection (b).
       (b) Authority for Multiyear Procurement of Twelve 
     Vessels.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized, pursuant 
     to section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, to enter 
     into multiyear contracts for the procurement of a total of 12 
     Arleigh Burke class destroyers at a procurement rate of three 
     ships in each of fiscal years, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 in 
     accordance with this subsection and subsections (a)(4) and 
     (c), subject to the availability of appropriations for such 
     destroyers. A contract for construction of one or more 
     vessels that is entered into in accordance with this 
     subsection shall include a clause that limits the liability 
     of the Government to the contractor for any termination of 
     the contract.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, this amendment would modify section 124 of 
the bill. In its present form this section authorizes three Arleigh 
Burke class destroyers in each of the 4 fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 
and 2001, for a total of 12 destroyers. The provision was included in 
the bill as the result of compelling testimony by the Navy's senior 
acquisition executive that he could save a billion dollars on the cost 
of 12 destroyers if Congress provided the opportunity for a reliable 
and stable procurement rate over the 4-year period. In other words the 
Navy would be able to procure 12 ships, all of them urgently needed, 
for the cost of 11 and still have funds left over for use elsewhere in 
a shipbuilding account that is under relentless pressure from competing 
requirements.
  To achieve such cost savings, the Navy will need explicit authority 
to enter into multiyear contracts and contract options. This amendment 
would provide that authority, while limiting the Government's liability 
should unforseen circumstances force a change in future procurement 
plans.
  This amendment makes military sense, cost sense, and industrial base 
sense. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side and I ask we approve it unanimously.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge approval of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4293) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I also ask unanimous consent that a statement by 
Senator Cohen be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4294

(Purpose: To provide funds for the Computer Emergency Response Team at 
                  the Software Engineering Institute)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Santorum and 
Senator Kyl, I offer an amendment which would provide $2 million for 
the Computer Emergency Response Team associated with the Software 
Engineering Institute. The amendment contains an appropriate offset. I 
believe the amendment has been cleared on the other side of the aisle.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside for the duration of this series of amendments. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for himself, Mr. 
     Santorum, and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 4294.
       At an appropriate place in the bill, add the following:

     SEC.   . COMPUTER EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM AT SOFTWARE 
                   ENGINEERING INSTITUTE.

       (a) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     under this Act, $2,000,000 shall be available to the Software 
     Engineering Institute only for use by the Computer Emergency 
     Response Team.
       (b) Funds authorized by Section 301(2) for the Challenge 
     Athena program shall be reduced by $2,000,000.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, Senators Santorum, Kyl, and I are offering 
today an amendment to provide $2 million for fiscal year 1997 for the 
computer emergency response team associated with the Software 
Engineering Institute at the Carnegie-Mellon University.
  The computer emergency response team [CERT] has operated since 1988 
under the sponsorship of the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency 
[DARPA]. Its missions are to respond to computer security emergencies 
and intrusions on the Internet, to serve as a central point for 
identifying vulnerabilities to hackers, and to conduct research to 
improve the security of existing systems.
  The number of computer emergencies handled by CERT has grown from 132 
in 1989 to nearly 2,500 in 1995. In addition to this rising tide of 
incidents, the severity of the incidents and the damage caused by the 
intrusions has increased significantly.
  During a hearing which I chaired last month before the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations, we learned that DARPA had decided that 
the CERT operation is not the kind of cutting-edge research project on 
which they are focused, and that they were planning to reduce their 
funding to CERT for fiscal year 1997 by 75 percent. While we agree with 
DARPA's view of its priorities, a funding reduction of this magnitude 
would have devastated the ability of CERT to respond to the growing 
volume of inquiries, and we do not wish to see the CERT capability 
disappear. Therefore, we are introducing this amendment to provide 
necessary funding for the CERT activity to continue through fiscal year 
1997. The Armed Services Committee will find an appropriate long-term 
source of funding for the CERT function during its deliberations on the 
fiscal year 1998 defense budget request.
  So as not to increase the funding level of the overall bill, our 
amendment reduces the funding already contained in S. 1745 for project 
Athena within O&M, Navy by $2 million. These funds represent hollow 
budget authority, as both appropriations committees have reduced 
funding for project Athena by more than the amount of the reduction in 
this amendment.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words regarding the 
amendment offered by myself along with Senators Nunn and Kyl pertaining 
to the Computer Emergency Response Team [CERT]. CERT is located in 
Pittsburgh at the Carnegie Mellon University's Software Engineering 
Institute [SEI] in my home State of Pennsylvania.
  This amendment would allocate an additional $2 million to be given to 
CERT to maintain their funding profile. When the SEI established its 
emergency response team in 1988, three members of the SEI technical 
staff were assigned to respond to computer security incidents on the 
Internet. Nearly 8 years later, use of the Internet has grown by 2,500 
percent, and there has been a 2,000-percent increase in the number of 
network intrusions. The number of computer emergencies that CERT has 
responded to has grown as well, from 32 in 1989 to 2,500 in 1995. 
However, due to past congressional actions which have imposed ceilings 
on federally-funded research and development centers, SEI and 
specifically CERT, has only been able to expand by nine people, 
limiting their ability to perform essential services. The invaluable 
contribution that CERT has provided under the stewardship of the SEI 
has been highlighted nationally more than 60 times by the New York 
Times and the Wall Street Journal, as well as featured on the CBS show 
``60 Minutes.'' Mr. President, I

[[Page S6909]]

urge the adoption of this amendment and am hopeful that this issue of 
ceilings will be addressed during the House-Senate conference on this 
bill.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to sponsor, with Senator Santorum, an 
amendment to S. 1745, the 1997 Defense Authorization Act, introduced by 
Senator Nunn. I thank Senator Nunn for his sponsorship of this 
provision, and his leadership in protecting the Nation's information 
systems. I believe that his hearings on computer security have awakened 
many to the need for a national defense strategy against strategic 
attacks on the national information infrastructure. I am pleased to be 
a sponsor of this amendment, which will ensure the continued operation 
of the computer emergency response team [CERT] at the Carnegie Mellon 
University Software Engineering Institute [SEI] in Pennsylvania for 
1997.
  The amendment would make $2 million available to CERT for fiscal year 
1997. For the last few years, the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency [DARPA] has allocated between $2.5 million and $3.0 million per 
year to CERT. CERT requested $2.75 million for 1997. DARPA will fund 
only one-fourth of that request in 1997 and $0 in 1998. DARPA's 
administration does not want to fund CERT because it believes that CERT 
does not properly belong to it. The amendment would correct the problem 
and move the funding out of DARPA.
  Why is this amendment necessary? CERT is arguably the most reliable 
source of computer security statistics and support in the country. 
Absent a comprehensive overhaul of national security policy for 
information systems--which I initiated in last year's bill, with an 
amendment that requires the President to develop a national 
architecture to protect against strategic attacks on the NII--there is 
not another entity better prepared to respond to potential threats. It 
continues to be DOD's best means of warding off unauthorized entry into 
the Pentagon's and the Nation's complex computer infrastructure.
  The Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, in its staff report on 
hearings it held on computer security, recommended the creation of a 
National Information Infrastructure Threat Center that ``should have 
real time 24 hour operational capabilities as well as serve as a 
clearinghouse for intrusion reports.'' CERT, for many years, has 
performed many of the functions cited in the staff report. It should 
continue to serve DOD until the committee's recommendations are 
executed.
  In 1988, DARPA requested that the SEI set up a computer response 
team. It was funded through a competitive procurement process, 
initiated by DARPA with the approval of Congress. DARPA mandated that 
CERT set up a 24-hour point of contact center to respond to security 
emergencies on networks and to help prevent future network incidents. 
This remains its current function.
  Since the inception of its response team, CERT has responded to over 
7,600 security incidents affecting tens of thousands of network-
connected sites. It is clear that CERT has played a key role in the 
DOD's national defense against attacks on our information systems. The 
amendment authorizes funding for only 1 year. Congress can reevaluate 
the importance of CERT again next year. I urge my colleagues to adopt 
the amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4294) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4295

    (Purpose: To correct an error made in the reporting of the bill)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thurmond, I offer 
an amendment that would make a technical correction to section 532 to 
correct an error made in reporting the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), for Mr. Thurmond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4295.

  The amendment is as follows:
       Beginning on page 127, strike out line 20 and all that 
     follows through page 129, line 10, and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following:
       ``(2)(A) Not more than 25 officers of any one armed force 
     may be serving on active duty concurrently pursuant to orders 
     to active duty issued under this section.
       ``(B) In the administration of subparagraph (A), the 
     following officers shall not be counted:
       ``(i) A chaplain who is assigned to duty as a chaplain for 
     the period of active duty to which ordered.
       ``(ii) A health care professional (as characterized by the 
     Secretary concerned) who is assigned to duty as a health care 
     professional for the period of the active duty to which 
     ordered.
       ``(iii) Any officer assigned to duty with the American 
     Battle Monuments Commission for the period of active duty to 
     which ordered.''.
       (b) Officers Retired on Selective Early Retirement Basis.--
     Such section is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) The following officers may not be ordered to active 
     duty under this section:
       ``(1) An officer who retired under section 638 of this 
     title.
       ``(2) An officer who--
       ``(A) after having been notified that the officer was to be 
     considered for early retirement under section 638 of this 
     title by a board convened under section 611(b) of this title 
     and before being considered by that board, requested 
     retirement under section 3911, 6323, or 8911 of this title; 
     and
       ``(B) was retired pursuant to that request.''.
       (c) Limitation of Period of Recall Service.--Such section, 
     as amended by subsection (b), is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(f) A member ordered to active duty under subsection (a) 
     may not serve on active duty pursuant to orders under such 
     subsection for more than 12 months within the 24 months 
     following the first day of the active duty to which ordered 
     under this section.''.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this amendment makes a technical change 
to section 532 correcting an error made when reporting the bill.
  When section 532 limiting the recall of retired officers to active 
duty as approved by the committee, it was our intent that the limit not 
apply to chaplains, health care professionals or officers assigned to 
the American Battle Monuments Commission. Due to an error in drafting, 
the legislation does not exempt these categories of recalled retired 
officers. My amendment corrects this error. Since the amendment changes 
the existing section to conform with the intent of the committee, I 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4295) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4296

    (Purpose: To provide that of the funds available for research, 
 development, test, and evaluation for the Air Force for arms control 
  implementation, $6,500,000 shall be available for basic research in 
                      nuclear seismic monitoring)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, I offer an 
amendment which would provide $6.5 million of the authorization for Air 
Force arms control implementation to be available for basic research in 
nuclear seismic monitoring. I believe the amendment has been cleared on 
the other side of the aisle. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mrs. Feinstein, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4296.

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

       At the end of subtitle B of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 223. FUNDING FOR BASIC RESEARCH IN NUCLEAR SEISMIC 
                   MONITORING.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     201(3) and made available

[[Page S6910]]

     for arms control implementation for the Air Force (account 
     PE0305145F), $6,500,000 shall be available for basic research 
     in nuclear seismic monitoring.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes $6.5 million 
for basic research in nuclear test monitoring. These funds ensure that 
the Department of Defense is able to support a comprehensive research 
and development program to improve nuclear test monitoring 
capabilities.
  The proliferation of nuclear weapons continues to be one of the most 
serious threats to our national security. This amendment underscores 
the need for the United States to maintain an effective capability in 
detecting and identifying clandestine nuclear tests. Only a sustained 
level of research involving the university community, in partnership 
with DOD and small companies, has been shown to be effective in 
developing and improving the monitoring of nuclear testing.
  The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT] will present new monitoring 
challenges including the detection and identification of events of 
smaller and smaller magnitude; and the ability to discriminate 
industrial or other chemical explosions and earthquakes from nuclear 
explosions. In order to meet these challenges, it is critical that 
adequate resources be devoted to programs aimed at developing and 
sustaining the capabilities required to monitor a CTBT.
  Under the CTBT, all signatories are committed to permanently refrain 
from testing nuclear weapons. This treaty would help to curtail the 
spread of nuclear weapons by outlawing the tests which are so necessary 
for their development. It would help prevent additional countries from 
developing nuclear weapons, beyond the five declared nuclear weapons 
states--the United States, Russia, China, France, and Britain--and the 
three undeclared nuclear weapons states--Israel, India and Pakistan. 
The CTBT would facilitate the political conditions necessary to 
continue step-by-step reductions of nuclear weapons and, perhaps, their 
eventual elimination. The five nuclear weapons states are all finally 
on record supporting a CTBT.
  My amendment will ensure that there is adequate funding, $6.5 
million, for basic research to improve technologies which enhance our 
ability to detect underground nuclear tests. I am pleased to offer this 
amendment and ask my colleagues for their support.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4296) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4297

     (Purpose: To specify the grade of the Chief of Naval Research)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lott, I offer an 
amendment that would specify the grade of Chief of Naval Research when 
that position is filled by a military officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Lott, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4297.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title V add the following:

     SEC. 506. GRADE OF CHIEF OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

       Section 5022(a) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Unless appointed to higher grade under another 
     provision of law, an officer, while serving in the Office of 
     Naval Research as Chief of Naval Research, has the rank of 
     rear admiral (upper half).''.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this amendment will strengthen the Navy's 
Office of Naval Research. This office was established by the Congress 
in 1946 in recognition of the contributions made by science and 
technology to the Nation's success during the Second World War.
  Like the period after World War II, we are experiencing tight budgets 
that require downsizing of our military forces. In periods like this, 
technological superiority becomes more important than ever as a means 
for retaining control over the sea lanes and to project military power 
ashore. Our technology base guarantees our sailors and marines have the 
leading edge weaponry and equipment they need to continue winning--
anywhere, anytime.
  Today's U.S. naval forces have the ability to deploy anywhere in the 
world and to sustain forward presence indefinitely. This ability is the 
direct result of past science and technology successes.
  Recognizing the importance of science and technology to the 
recapitalization efforts of the Navy, the Secretary of the Navy 
recently established a special study of the Department's science and 
technology program. It was chaired by Mr. Robert Galvin, chief 
executive officer of Motorola Corp. Among the findings of this study 
was that the rank of the senior naval officer in a military 
organization is one measure of the relative importance of the work 
conducted by that organization. The study said:

       The Department of the Navy should recognize the importance 
     of science and technology program to its own future and 
     return to the practice of assigning a Naval Officer to the 
     Chief of Naval Research position that is equal in rank to the 
     Commanders of the Systems Commands.

  This initiative amends section 5022 of Public Law 588 to again 
establish a requirement for the Chief of Naval Research to be a rear 
admiral (upper half). The Senate struck this requirement in 1991.
  I think this Senate needs to reestablish the two star rank for the 
Chief of Naval Research to ensure he will be the equivalent of other 
naval systems commanders and will therefore be able to effectively plan 
and ensure the viability of the Navy's science and technology programs. 
As a two star, the Chief of Naval Research will have the stature to be 
an effective spokesman for science and technology in this current 
budget constrained environment. Through this action, we will ensure 
that science and technology, which is a long-term investment, will not 
be sacrificed for apparent pressing short-term needs. This move ensures 
the Navy's S&T program has the independence and stature necessary to 
ensure the Navy's future warfighting capability.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the 
other side and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4297) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. I move 
to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4298

   (Purpose: To authorize the conveyance of the William Langer Jewel 
 Bearing Plant to the Job Development Authority of the City of Rolla, 
                 North Dakota, and for other purposes)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dorgan and Senator 
Conrad, I offer an amendment which would authorize the conveyance of 
the William Langer jewel bearing plant to the Job Development Authority 
of Rolla, ND. I believe the amendment has been cleared on the other 
side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Dorgan, for 
     himself and Mr. Conrad, proposes an amendment numbered 4298.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 393, after line 23, add the following:

     SEC. 2828. LAND CONVEYANCE, WILLIAM LANGER JEWEL BEARING 
                   PLANT, ROLLA, NORTH DAKOTA.

       (a) Authority To Convey.--The Administrator of General 
     Services may convey, without consideration, to the Job 
     Development Authority of the City of Rolla, North Dakota (in 
     this section referred to as the ``Authority''), all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel 
     of real property, with improvements thereon and all 
     associated personal property, consisting of approximately 
     9.77 acres and comprising the William Langer Jewel Bearing 
     Plant in Rolla, North Dakota.
       (b) Condition of Conveyance.--The conveyance authorized 
     under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that 
     the Authority--

[[Page S6911]]

       (1) use the real and personal property and improvements 
     conveyed under that subsection for economic development 
     relating to the jewel bearing plant;
       (2) enter into an agreement with an appropriate public or 
     private entity or person to lease such property and 
     improvements to that entity or person for such economic 
     development; or
       (3) enter into an agreement with an appropriate public or 
     private entity or person to sell such property and 
     improvements to that entity or person for such economic 
     development.
       (c) Preference for Domestic Disposal of Jewel Bearings.--
     (1) In offering to enter into agreements pursuant to any 
     provision of law for the disposal of jewel bearings from the 
     National Defense Stockpile, the President shall give a right 
     of first refusal on all such offers to the Authority or to 
     the appropriate public or private entity or person with which 
     the Authority enters into an agreement under subsection (b).
       (2) For the purposes of this section, the term ``National 
     Defense Stockpile'' means the stockpile provided for in 
     section 4 of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock 
     Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98(c)).
       (d) Availability of Funds for Maintenance and Conveyance of 
     Plant.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     available in fiscal year 1995 for the maintenance of the 
     William Langer Jewel Bearing Plant in Public Law 103-335 
     shall be available for the maintenance of that plant in 
     fiscal year 1996, pending conveyance, and for the conveyance 
     of that plant under this section.
       (e) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the property conveyed under this section shall 
     be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Administrator. 
     The cost of the survey shall be borne by the Administrator.
       (f) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Administrator may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under this section as the Administrator 
     determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my amendment would expedite the conveyance 
of the William Langer Jewel Bearing plant in Rolla, ND, to the Job 
Development Authority of the city of Rolla. The amendment would enable 
the General Services Administration to transfer the plant to the 
Authority more quickly, and in a way that would enable the plant to 
continue as a going enterprise.
  My senior colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, is 
cosponsoring this amendment, and the Defense Department and the General 
Services Administration have no objection to it. In fact, the Defense 
Department and GSA have cooperated in helping the plant to orient 
itself more toward commercial markets.
  Let me describe the background and purpose of this amendment.
  The Langer plant has roots in the cold war. Back in the 1950's, our 
defense leaders realized that we lacked the ability to produce jewel 
bearings, which are finely machined bits of carborundum. They were 
crucial components in military avionics systems. So the Congress 
located a jewel bearing plant in North Dakota. The Langer plant has 
been producing jewel bearings as a Government-owned, contractor-
operated facility since then.
  My colleagues should also know that the plant is a few miles from the 
Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation. Of the plant's 80 or so employees 
remaining after a downsizing, about 60 percent are native American. The 
Langer plant brings crucial skilled jobs to an economically depressed 
area--Rolette County, where the unemployment rate is one of the highest 
in the country.
  However, changing technology means that the national defense 
stockpile no longer needs to buy jewel bearings. The Defense Department 
has now reported the plant to the General Services Administration as 
surplus property. Those of my colleagues who are dealing with base 
closures and defense downsizing know that this situation presents Rolla 
with a crisis and an opportunity.
  The future of this factory depends on its ability to become a 
commercial manufacturer. The local community has a plan to bring this 
about: the Rolla Job Development Authority, through a subsidiary 
corporation, is already running the plant for the Federal Government. 
That subsidiary, called Micro-Lap Technologies, will continue to run 
the plant after the conveyance.
  Normal surplus property rules would require the GSA to sell the plant 
for fair market value. The problem is that no local entity can afford 
the plant, which had an original cost of $4.2 million. The plant itself 
is not now healthy enough in a business sense to finance its own 
acquisition by a new management team.
  In fact, the plant's economic position is so tenuous that the plant 
will likely run out of money in September, because it has not had a 
chance to build a strong commercial customer base to replace its 
defense contracts. The plant has worked hard to cut costs, and it has 
already had to cut its work force by 30 percent. I am deeply concerned 
that the plant may not survive without conveyance legislation.
  My colleagues will understand that as a Government-owned facility, 
the plant is not able to compete freely, nor is it eligible for the 
kind of small business or economic development assistance that is 
available to private sector firms. However, once conveyed, the plant 
will be in a position to aggressively seek commercial contracts and 
assistance from the State and other agencies.
  I would like to stress to the Senate that the Rolla community, the 
State of North Dakota, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, and the 
local business community have been working hard to ensure that the 
plant makes a successful transition to the private sector. The local 
community is united behind the plan to transfer the plant to the Job 
Development Authority of the city of Rolla. Of course, the conveyance 
is conditional on the community and the General Services Administration 
reaching a mutually acceptable legal agreement on the conveyance. But I 
am confident that the GSA and the community can reach that agreement 
swiftly.
  Let me also remind my colleagues that in September 1995 the Senate 
approved by voice vote an amendment of mine to last year's defense 
authorization bill that was exactly identical to this amendment. And 
then, in January of this year, the Senate unanimously passed S. 1544, 
which was a freestanding version of this amendment. However, the House 
has not yet acted on that separate bill. This will actually be the 
third time that the Senate has passed this Langer plant conveyance. 
Fortunately, section 2852 of the House defense authorization bill is 
exactly the same provision as the amendment I am now offering. I think 
this means the third time will be the charm.
  Let me thank the chair and ranking member of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, Senators Stevens and Glenn, for their support of this 
amendment. And the chair and ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senators Thurmond and Nunn, have been helpful to me on this 
issue for nearly a year now. Senator McCain has also assisted in 
expediting this conveyance. I am deeply grateful to all five senators 
and their staffs for their support and assistance.
  Mr. President, to sum up, I would simply say that this amendment 
tries to give a helping hand to the Langer plant and the city of Rolla. 
It also will relieve the Federal Government of a facility that the 
Defense Department no longer needs. I look forward to the Senate's 
unanimous approval of my amendment, and to its enactment into law.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support an amendment offered on behalf of my esteemed colleague from 
North Dakota and myself by the distinguished ranking member of the 
Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn. This amendment to the fiscal 
year 1997 Defense authorization bill would authorize the conveyance of 
the William Langer Jewel Bearing Plant from the General Services 
Administration [GSA] to the Job Development Authority of the city of 
Rolla, ND.
  As my colleagues may be aware, for over 40 years the Langer plant has 
been serving the national defense stockpile, manufacturing jewel 
bearings. Its work has been outstanding. Last year, however, the plant 
was transferred to the GSA after having been declared surplus by the 
Department of Defense. Since that time the Rolla community has worked 
tirelessly to ensure that the plant will remain open and continue to 
play a vital role in the economic health of the region. Conveyance of 
this property to the Rolla Job Development Authority is necessary to 
ensure that this privatization initiative has a chance.

[[Page S6912]]

  Mr. President, congressional support for this privatization effort is 
especially worthwhile in light of the very positive impact the plant 
has on an economically disadvantaged part of my State. Of the plant's 
110 employees, about 60 percent are Native American. Unemployment is 
high on the Turtle Mountain Reservation, and loss of these jobs would 
be devastating.
  Keeping this facility open makes good sense. The Langer plant 
utilizes unique micromanufacturing technology that helped form a 
critical part of our defense industrial base and can be reapplied to 
the private sector. Furthermore, the plant's existing production of 
dosimeters, used in measuring exposure to nuclear radiation, as well as 
its hopes to develop a large-scale production of fiber optic cable 
connectors, known as ferrules, will increase its potential to compete 
in commercial markets and meet possible future Federal needs.
  Legislation introduced by Senator Dorgan and myself which passed the 
Senate in January would provide for conveyance, as would a provision in 
the version of the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill passed 
by the House. Local businesses, community leaders from Turtle Mountain, 
and State officials are all working together to ensure the success of 
the plant and its growth as a viable enterprise, but now the Senate 
needs to act again to ensure that the Congress has done its part.
  The Defense Logistics Agency has been very helpful in keeping the 
plant open until conveyance occurs, but action from Congress is 
essential if the plant is to continue to play a key role in the future 
of the Rolla community. This amendment will enable the plant to 
transition to the private sector, and I would urge all of my colleagues 
to support it. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee for his assistance in this important matter, and 
yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. The amendment is cleared. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4298) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4299

(Purpose: To provide for a study of Department of Energy liability for 
 damages to natural resources with respect to Department sites covered 
    by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
                         Liability Act of 1980)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thomas, I offer 
an amendment that would require the Department of Energy to carry out a 
study to determine the extent of liability for natural resource damage 
at sites controlled and operated by the department.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. HUTCHISON], for Mr. Thomas, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4299.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 3161. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LIABILITY AT 
                   DEPARTMENT SUPERFUND SITES.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Energy shall, using funds 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Energy by 
     section 3102, carry out a study of the liability of the 
     Department for damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss 
     of natural resources under section 107(a)(4)(C) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(4)(C)) at each site 
     controlled or operated by the Department that is or is 
     anticipated to become subject to the provisions of that Act.
       (b) Conduct of Study.--(1) The Secretary shall carry out 
     the study using personnel of the Department or by contract 
     with an appropriate private entity.
       (2) In determining the extent of Department liability for 
     purposes of the study, the Secretary shall treat the 
     Department as a private person liable for damages under 
     section 107(f) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 9607(f)) and subject to 
     suit by public trustees of natural resources under such 
     section 107(f) for such damages.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report on 
     the study carried out under subsection (a) to the following 
     committees:
       (1) The Committees on Environment and Public Works and 
     Armed Services and Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate.
       (2) The Committees on Commerce and National Security and 
     Resources of the House of Representatives.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I believe this amendment has been cleared by both 
sides.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared, and I urge 
its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4299) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4300

(Purpose: To require information on the proposed funding for the Guard 
      and Reserve components in the future-years defense programs)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Robb and Senator 
Warner, I offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. NUNN], for Mr. Robb, for 
     himself and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 4300.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1054. INFORMATION ON PROPOSED FUNDING FOR THE GUARD AND 
                   RESERVE COMPONENTS IN FUTURE-YEARS DEFENSE 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall specify in 
     each future-years defense program submitted to Congress after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act the estimated 
     expenditures and proposed appropriations for the procurement 
     of equipment and for military construction for each of the 
     guard and Reserve components.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Guard and Reserve components'' means the following:
       (1) The Army Reserve.
       (2) The Army National Guard of the United States.
       (3) The Naval Reserve.
       (4) The Marine Corps Reserve.
       (5) The Air Force Reserve.
       (6) The Air National Guard of the United States.

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, this amendment directs the Secretary of 
Defense to specify in the future years defense plan--submitted to the 
Congress as required in title 10--the estimated expenditures and 
proposed appropriations for the procurement of equipment and for 
military construction for the National Guard and Reserve components.
  The fact that this situation has reached this stage is a matter of 
some concern, Mr. President. Because the Congress cannot require the 
Executive to submit a budget recommendation at a set level for the 
Guard and Reserves, the Congress included a useful provision in last 
year's authorization that required the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report on what actions DOD was taking to enhance the Guard and 
Reserves, how the Department would spend its fiscal year 1997 Guard and 
Reserves equipment and construction requests, and to provide its future 
years defense plan for the same. This would have allowed the Armed 
Services Committee this year to make a more informed judgement on how 
to increase, if necessary, the Guard and Reserve authorization. To 
date, DOD has provided no report--in direct contradiction of 
congressional direction.
  Our intent last year was to fix a perennial problem, to wit, that the 
administration's budget request consistently fails to include any 
funding for National Guard and Reserve weapons or equipment, and that 
the MILCON request is consistently underfunded by several hundred 
million dollars a year. This, of course, necessitates congressional 
adds that must be drawn out of other defense programs or an increase in 
the total defense authorization level, neither of which is an 
acceptable way to effect public policy.
  The Congress is compelled to make crucial decisions on weapons and 
construction procurement with no guidance from the administration. The 
end result is directed spending that does much for Member interests but 
little for achieving a balanced total force.
  One solution--so-called generic authorization of funds--is a small 
improvement but far from perfect. With generic funding we abdicate our 
legislative responsibilities. We don't give the DOD blanket dollar 
amounts for aircraft and then let the department decide how many B-2's, 
F-22's and

[[Page S6913]]

other aircraft it needs to buy. The generic approach is also troubling 
because we authorize dollar amounts while pretending we don't know how 
we derived those amounts or what precisely they will be spent on, when 
in fact we do make assumptions about what precisely needs to be 
authorized in order to derive the generic funding totals.
  Mr. President, my amendment echoes the requirements outlined in last 
year's provision on National Guard and Reserve authorizations, but it 
goes one step further in establishing a permanent marker for the 
Secretary of Defense. Currently, title 10 requires the Department to 
submit its future years defense program. This amendment will require in 
title 10 the submission of the same plan for the Guard and Reserve.
  The Congress must have a foundation to work from in determining a 
rational topline for the Guard and Reserves. Congress may decide on a 
lower or higher amount, but at least it can make such a decision based 
on guidance from DOD on the Department's priorities.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that this amendment will persuade the 
Department of Defense on an annual basis to fully address Guard and 
Reserve funding in conjunction with deliberations on active-force 
budgets. To do less is to undermine the Department's concept of total 
force management--and to invite the Congress to distort and manipulate 
Reserve accounts based on individual Member interests in lieu of the 
national interest.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment has been 
accepted on both sides and I urge its adoption. I yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment provides that DOD provide 
Congress each year information on the future years defense plan for 
procurements and military construction for support of the National 
Guard and Reserve forces. This would give Congress greater visibility 
on the Department's plan for these important programs. I urge adoption 
of the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. It has been cleared. I urge adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4300) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4301

   (Purpose: To amend section 348, relating to shipboard solid waste 
                                control)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Chafee, I offer 
an amendment that would modify section 348 of S. 1745 to provide for a 
report on compliance with annex V to the convention for the prevention 
of pollution on ships and publication of discharges in special areas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Chafee, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4301.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 348, add the following:
       (c) Report on Compliance with Annex V to the Convention.--
     The Secretary of Defense shall include in each report on 
     environmental compliance activities submitted to Congress 
     under section 2706(b) of title 10, United States Code, the 
     following information:
       (1) A list of the ships types, if any, for which the 
     Secretary of the Navy has made the determination referred to 
     in paragraph (2)(C) of section 3(c) of the Act to Prevent 
     Pollution from Ships, as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this 
     section.
       (2) A list of ship types which the Secretary of the Navy 
     has determined can comply with Regulation 5 of Annex V to the 
     Convention.
       (3) A summary of the progress made by the Navy in 
     implementing the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) such 
     section 3(c), as so amended.
       (4) A description of any emerging technologies offering the 
     potential to achieve full compliance with Regulation 5 of 
     Annex V to the Convention.
       (d) Publication Regarding Special Area Discharges.--Section 
     3(e)(4) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 
     1902(e)(4)) is amended by striking out subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(A) The amount and nature of the discharges in special 
     areas, not otherwise authorized under this title, during the 
     preceding year from ships referred to in subsection (b)(1)(A) 
     of this section owned or operated by the Department of the 
     Navy.''.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I believe this amendment has been cleared, and I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge passage of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4301) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4302

  (Purpose: To require that the Secretary of Energy request funds in 
  fiscal year 1998 for the U.S. portion of the cost of the Greenville 
                Road Improvement Project, Livermore, CA)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, I offer an 
amendment which would ask the Secretary of Energy to include sufficient 
funding in the budget for fiscal year 1998 to pay for the Government's 
cost of transportation improvements at the Livermore lab site. I 
believe the amendment has been cleared on the other side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mrs. Feinstein, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4302.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 3161. FISCAL YEAR 1998 FUNDING FOR GREENVILLE ROAD 
                   IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Funding.--The Secretary of Energy shall include in 
     budget for fiscal year 1998 submitted by the Secretary of 
     Energy to the Office of Management and Budget a request for 
     sufficient funds to pay the United States portion of the cost 
     of transportation improvements under the Greenville Road 
     Improvement Project, Livermore, California.
       (b) Cooperation with Livermore, California.--The Secretary 
     shall work with the City of Livermore, California, to 
     determine the cost of the transportation improvements 
     referred to in subsection (a).

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. This amendment has been cleared. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4302) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4303

 (Purpose: To require the Department of Defense to conduct a study to 
 assess the cost savings associated with dismantling and neutralizing 
    chemical munitions in place as opposed to incineration in place)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. On behalf of Senator Brown, I offer an amendment 
which would require the Department of Defense to study the cost 
effectiveness of dismantling chemical munitions, neutralizing the 
chemical agent on site and transporting that agent to a centrally 
located incinerator for destruction versus building an incinerator at 
each facility. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Brown, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4303.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 113. STUDY REGARDING NEUTRALIZATION OF THE CHEMICAL 
                   WEAPONS STOCKPILE.

       (a) Study.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a 
     study to determine the cost of incineration of the current 
     chemical munitions stockpile by building incinerators at each 
     existing facility compared to the proposed cost of 
     dismantling those same munitions, neutralizing them at each 
     storage site and transporting the neutralized remains and all 
     munitions parts to a centrally located incinerator within the 
     United States for incineration.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of the Congress a report on the study 
     carried out under subsection (a).

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4303) was agreed to.

[[Page S6914]]

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4304

 (Purpose: To provide for preventive health care screening of military 
        health care beneficiaries for colon or prostate cancer)

  Mr. NUNN. On behalf of Senator Wellstone, I offer an amendment which 
would authorize male service members and former members who are 
entitled to medical care to receive preventive screening for colon 
cancer and prostate cancer at intervals prescribed by the service 
Secretaries. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Wellstone, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4304.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VII add the following:

     SEC. 708. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE SCREENING FOR COLON AND 
                   PROSTATE CANCER.

       (a) Members and Former Members.--(1) Section 1074d of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Female''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Male members and former members of the uniformed 
     services entitled to medical care under section 1074 or 1074a 
     of this title shall also be entitled to preventive health 
     care screening for colon or prostate cancer at such intervals 
     and using such screening methods as the administering 
     Secretaries consider appropriate.''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(8) Colon cancer screening, at the intervals and using 
     the screening methods prescribed under subsection (a)(2).''.
       (2)(A) The heading of such section is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 1074d. Primary and preventive health care services

       (B) The item relating to such section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 55 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``1074d. Primary and preventive health care services.''.

       (b) Dependents.--(1) Section 1077(a) of such title is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(14) Preventive health care screening for colon or 
     prostate cancer, at the intevals and using the screening 
     methods prescribed under section 1074d(a)(2) of this 
     title.''.
       (2) Section 1079(a)(2) of such title is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting 
     ``the schedule and method of colon and prostate cancer 
     screenings,'' after ``pap smears and mammograms,''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or colon and 
     prostate cancer screenings'' after ``pap smears and 
     mammograms''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to describe briefly an amendment 
which I am offering today to correct an oversight in the military 
health care system. My amendment would permit preventive prostate and 
colon cancer screenings for male servicemembers, and preventive colon 
cancer screenings for female servicemembers. This commonsense amendment 
was offered in the House to the DOD authorization bill by my colleague 
from Minnesota, Congressman Oberstar, and was adopted by the full House 
of Representatives with broad bipartisan support.
  Mr. President, I offer this amendment to address a narrow, yet 
vitally important, shortcoming in current military health care law. 
Department of Defense health care law presently entitles current and 
former female servicemembers and dependents to receive preventive 
screenings for breast and cervical cancer and other diseases. Current 
and former male servicemembers and dependents, however, are not 
permitted to receive similar preventive screenings for prostate and 
colon cancer. Broadening the law to explicitly cover prostate and colon 
cancer screenings will save substantial money in averted health care 
costs, as well as countless lives.
  The need for this amendment was called to my attention recently by 
Congressman Oberstar, who has been a crusader for responsible Federal 
health care and research policies designed to combat the scourge of 
cancer, and provide expanded treatment options for those who fight 
these terrible diseases. I'd like to dedicate this amendment to Jim's 
deceased wife, Jo Oberstar, whose long and heartbreaking struggle with 
cancer, passionate commitment to her family, and fierce determination 
inspired all of us who knew her. Jim's commitment to fight cancer in 
all its forms is fired by her memory, and issues in his tireless 
efforts to honor and redeem her death by fighting to improve Federal 
policies in this area, and to ensure access to care and preventive 
treatment for millions of Americans.
  In the time since Congressman Oberstar offered this amendment to the 
House bill, the American Gastroentrological Association has brought to 
our attention the fact that colon cancer affects women in roughly equal 
numbers to men. The current list of available screenings for female 
servicemembers, however, does not include this necessary procedure. My 
amendment would take care of this oversight.
  In a time of increasing pressure on the Department of Defense to 
enlist and retain the highest quality personnel which our Nation has to 
offer, modest changes such as these are needed to demonstrate our 
continuing commitment to the well-being of our men and women in 
uniform. This amendment has generated broad bipartisan support, 
including in the House National Security Committee, in the full House 
of Representatives, and in the Department of Defense. I am grateful for 
the support of those Members of the Committee, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, who have agreed to accept this amendment. It will be 
a modest, though important, advance in detecting and preventing colon 
and prostate cancer for those in our Armed Forces. It is sound social, 
economic, and medical policy, and I urge my colleagues to support its 
adoption.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. This amendment has been cleared. I urge the adoption 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4304) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4305

 (Purpose: To provide funding for the Scorpius space launch technology 
                                program)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. On behalf of Senator Domenici, I offer an amendment 
which would authorize the use of up to $7.5 million in funds authorized 
for the ballistic missile defense organization to be used for the 
Scorpius space launch technology program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4305.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 237. SCORPIUS SPACE LAUNCH TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under section 
     201(4) for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization for 
     Support Technologies/Follow-On Technologies (PE 63173C), up 
     to $7,500,000 is available for the Scorpius space launch 
     technology program.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have long been concerned over the 
excessive cost of space launch. We have lost the commercial space 
launch industry, which America pioneered, to overseas competitors. The 
burden on the defense budget is inordinate. Current space launch 
vehicles are still using 1970's technology and have little margin for 
error. The military spends well over $1 billion per year on space 
launch. A 15,000-pound communications satellite launch is over $100 
million; a 50,000-pound surveillance satellite over $350 million. 
Today's rockets are engineering miracles in an industry that needs to 
achieve manufacturing economies.
  I have been closely following the progress of Microcosm, a small 
California company and its Scorpius program, a family of space launch 
vehicles. This is an effort to lower the space launch cost from its 
current over $7,000 per pound to low Earth orbit to under $1,000 per 
pound. For example, if Scorpius is successful, the current launch cost 
for a 15,000-pound military communications satellite would drop from 
over $100 million to less than $15 million.
  Scorpius's launch crew would be 12 technicians, not the current 
hundreds,

[[Page S6915]]

even thousands of engineers needed for today's. Those same 12 
technicians, when not actually firing the rocket, would be assembling 
them. It is truly a simple design.
  Scorpius would be true launch on demand, able to lift off within 8 
hours after the payload arrives at the launch site. Its short, squat 
design, though ugly compared to present rockets, makes it oblivious to 
weather limitations of today such as high wind. It would not require 
the extensive launch infrastructure such as a gantry, providing great 
flexibility of where it could be fired. Our military field commanders 
would be able to request and receive the satellite resources they need 
when and where they need them.
  Microcosm has received seven SBIR contracts for Scorpius totalling 
roughly $2.6 million. All SBIR contracts and awarded competitively. The 
results have been impressive:
  Seven engines built, each at a cost under $5,000;
  Seven engines test-fired including;
  The last test fired engine ran for 200 seconds on a continuous burn-
thrust capable of getting a payload to LEO, low earth orbit, for under 
$1/pound was attained;
  The flight computer was designed and built--its recurring cost is 
about $1,500; total on-board GN&C recurring costs will be under 
$30,000;
  Preliminary tank design has been completed; including a LOX liner 
technique for the composite tanks; and
  Technical spin-offs that could benefit non-Scorpius programs as well, 
such as the gas generator.
  BMDO, which provided funding for the first award, has allocated $1.5 
million in fiscal year 1996 money for this effort. The $7.5 million in 
the bill would allow for ground development and testing to be 
completed, four sub-orbital rockets to be built and real flight testing 
of the rockets. The first test flight would occur in fall of 1997.
  The program has been subjected to many senior technical reviews by 
both government and industry experts. No significant technical problem 
has been identified.
  Scorpius is a bargain. It is a leap-frog technology that could make 
space launch truly affordable and recapture an American industry--and 
jobs--now lost to foreign companies.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I believe this amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4305) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4306

(Purpose: To clarify the applicability of section 1102, relating to the 
  retention of civilian employee positions at military training bases 
                   transferred to the National Guard)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Heflin and Shelby, I 
offer an amendment which would expand the provision of the 
authorization bill which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to retain 
a number of civilian employees in any military base approved for 
closure by the 1995 BRAC round where an enclave is going to be 
maintained to support active and resserve training, and where the base 
is scheduled for transfer to the National Guard in 1997. Specifically, 
the amendment would remove the requirement that the base be scheduled 
for transfer in 1997.
  I believe the amendment has been cleared on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Heflin, for 
     himself and Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 4306.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In section 1102(a)(2), strike out ``during fiscal year 
     1997''.

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
insure that the National Guard will be able to fully use the training 
infrastructure of Fort McClellan.
  The Armed Services Committee has included a wise provision in its 
bill that allows the National Guard to retain certain key civilians at 
each installation they are gaining through the BRAC process. The 
committee's provision only covered training bases closed before the end 
of 1997. My amendment would extent this date to 1999, so that Fort 
McClellan would also be covered. I encourage my colleagues to support 
this needed change.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, This amendment has been cleared. I 
urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4306) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4307

  (Purpose: To require a report on facilities used for testing launch 
                            vehicle engines)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. On behalf of Senator Lott, I offer an amendment which 
would require a report on facilities for testing space launch vehicles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Lott, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4307.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1054. REPORT ON FACILITIES USED FOR TESTING LAUNCH 
                   VEHICLE ENGINES.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration, shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the facilities used for testing launch 
     vehicle engines.
       (b) Content of Report.--The report shall contain an 
     analysis of the duplication between Air Force and National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration hydrogen rocket test 
     facilities and the potential benefits of further coordinating 
     activities at such facilities.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this would require a report regarding space 
launch vehicle test facilities. The report would address duplication 
between the Air Force and NASA in the area of hydrogen engine testing. 
I am concerned that we have not adequately coordinated these activities 
and I believe that additional information is required. I am hopeful 
that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Administrator 
of NASA, will provide a useful report as a guide to possible 
efficiencies. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the 
other side.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4307) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4308

 (Purpose: To provide an additional exception for the cost limitation 
                 for procurement of Seawolf submarines)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thurmond, I offer 
an amendment that would provide an additional exception for the cost 
limitation for procurement of Seawolf class submarines.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Thurmond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4308.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title I add the following:

     SEC. 124. ADDITIONAL EXCEPTION FROM COST LIMITATION FOR 
                   SEAWOLF SUBMARINE PROGRAM.

       Section 133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 211) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking out ``subsection (b)'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsections (b) and (c)''; 
     and
       (2) by striking out subsection (c) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``(c) Costs Not Included.--The previous obligations of 
     $745,700,000 for the SSN-23, SSN-24, and SSN-25 submarines, 
     out of funds appropriated for fiscal years 1990, 1991, and

[[Page S6916]]

     1992, that were subsequently canceled (as a result of a 
     cancellation of such submarines) shall not be taken into 
     account in the application of the limitation in subsection 
     (a).''.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in the fiscal year 1996 Defense 
Authorization Act, Congress imposed a cost cap on procurement of the 
three Seawolf class submarines that Congress has authorized. The 
principal purpose of this cost cap was to cause the Navy to focus 
careful attention on the program to forestall the type of cost growth 
that plagued other major shipbuilding programs in the past. While the 
Navy was given ample opportunity to participate in its development, the 
cost cap is a tight one that will require constant attention throughout 
the construction of the ships.
  The Navy has responded by implementing a number of management changes 
that proved successful during the past year in containing cost growth. 
Included was the creation of an independent cost review team that has 
an independent charter to examine the program's books and report any 
concerns that arise to the Navy's Senior Acquisition Executive. As the 
team has developed information the committee has been kept informed.
  A concern that has emerged this year is the existence and status of 
program costs that have been allocated to canceled Seawolf submarines. 
As my colleagues will recall, the original Seawolf program called for 
construction of more than 20 submarines of the class. In the immediate 
aftermath of the cold war as the defense budget declined, the program 
was terminated. At the time funds had been fully or partially 
appropriated for six Seawolf submarines.

  After careful review Congress has partially restored the Seawolf 
program to the extent that three or the submarines will be built. 
However, a considerable amount of sunk cost was incurred as a 
consequence of contracts detail design and for construction of various 
components for now canceled submarines that will never be built.
  When the Navy was asked to assist in developing a cost cap total last 
year, it did not propose inclusion of these sunk costs in the cost cap. 
However, legitimate questions have been raised by the Navy's 
independent cost review team as to whether some portion of these costs, 
such as those for detail design or for components that may eventually 
be used in the three Seawolf submarines that are under construction, 
should be included in the cap.
  The committee acted to address the matter of detail design costs in 
report language that accompanies this bill by acknowledging them and 
noting that they had not been included in the cost tap. Subsequent to 
our markup, however, additional sunk costs have been identified 
associated with the termination of nuclear and nonnuclear components 
for which an argument could be advanced on both sides as to whether 
they properly belong within the cost cap. These are not hidden costs 
that have suddenly appeared. They have been routinely reported by the 
Navy as part of the total program cost. The issue is whether they 
should or should not have been associated with the three subs presently 
under construction.
  One course of action that we could have pursued as questions were 
raised by the conscientious efforts of the Navy's independent cost team 
would have been to ignore them. However, this course of action could 
have led to future acrimony as to whether the Navy had breached the 
cost cap. Another alternative would be to include them in the cost cap 
number. However, since the cost cap was put in place to safeguard 
against future cost growth vice documenting sunk costs, this approach 
would have contributed little, if anything, toward satisfying that 
objective.
  Our recommended approach, the one reflected in this amendment, would 
be to first reaffirm last year's cost cap, a cap stringent enough to 
demand constant vigilance by the Navy and concurrently acknowledge in 
law that certain costs that have been associated with canceled 
submarines are excluded from it. This approach appears a more prudent 
means of avoiding any future legal disputes than to employ revised 
report language to accomplish the same objective.
  In my opinion, adopting this amendment will address legitimate issues 
and also encourage the Navy to continue forthright discourse with 
Congress on the progress of the Seawolf program. I strongly encourage 
my fellow Senators to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have no objection to this amendment to 
provide a specific exception from the cost cap for $745.7 million which 
was expended for termination and other procurement costs associated 
with cancelled ships. These funds were not included in the calculations 
by the Navy for the original procurement cost cap.
  I should note that the committee was advised earlier this year that 
$278 million in class detail design costs had been left out of the cost 
cap calculations. Since these amounts were not directly related to 
procurement of the three submarines currently under construction, the 
committee included in its report on this bill a section starting that 
these costs were not to be considered part of the cost cap.
  Only a few weeks ago, the Navy advised the committee that an 
additional $467.7 million had not been addressed in calculating the 
cost cap. The Navy requested specific legislative relief from including 
these amounts in the Seawolf cost cap.
  Mr. President, again, I have no objection to this amendment. It is 
clear that the $745.7 million identified in this amendment cannot be 
appropriately tied to procurement of any of the three Seawolf 
submarines. However, I find it disconcerting at best that the Navy only 
recently identified these amounts to Congress. In the future, I hope 
and expect that the Navy's program management team will be able to 
better track all amounts associated with Seawolf submarine procurement 
in order to remain within the legislative cost cap.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I believe the amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4308) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4309

    (Purpose: To strike section 2812 relating to the disposition of 
    proceeds of certain commissary stores and nonappropriated fund 
  instrumentalities and to amend section 634 to sunset the authority 
                  under that section to pay annuities)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thurmond, I offer 
an amendment which would strike section 2812 relating to the 
disposition of proceeds of certain commissary stores and 
nonappropriated fund instrumentalities and sunset section 634 relating 
to forgotten widows.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Thurmond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4309.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 634, add the following:
       (e) Expiration of Authority.--The authority to pay 
     annuities under this section shall expire on September 30, 
     2001.
       Strike out section 2812, relating to the disposition of 
     proceeds of certain commissary stores and nonappropriated 
     fund instrumentalities.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, my amendment would strike section 2812 
and sunset section 634 of the Defense authorization bill.
  Section 2812 would have allowed the proceeds from sales of facilities 
at base closure sites built with commissary store funds or 
nonappropriated funds to be deposited into established funds to support 
commissary stores and nonappropriated fund activities.
  Section 634, would authorize the Secretary of Defense to pay an 
annuity to the surviving spouses of retired service members who died 
before March 1974. This group of surviving spouses has become known as 
the ``Forgotten Widows'' since they were widowed before the Survivor 
Benefit Plan was enacted.
  Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office scored these 
provisions as direct spending, which is not in the committee's 
allocation, I am requesting that section 2812 be stricken and section 
634 be terminated effective September 30, 2001.

[[Page S6917]]

  Mr. President, I know of no objection to the amendment and ask that 
the Senate adopt the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the 
other side.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4309) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4310

  (Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate on Department of Defense 
       sharing of its experiences under military youth programs)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy and Senator 
Coats, I offer an amendment which would provide a sense of the Senate 
that military and civilian youth program coordinators could benefit 
from greater exchange of information and close relationship between 
military installations and the local communities that support them.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other side of the 
aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Kennedy, for 
     himself and Mr. Coats, proposes an amendment numbered 4310.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1072. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   SHARING OF EXPERIENCES UNDER MILITARY YOUTH 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Programs of the Department of Defense for youth who are 
     dependents of members of the Armed Forces have not received 
     the same level of attention and resources as have child care 
     programs of the Department since the passage of the Military 
     Child Care Act of 1989 (title XV of Public Law 101-189; 10 
     U.S.C. 113 note).
       (2) Older children deserve as much attention to their 
     developmental needs as do younger children.
       (3) The Department has started to direct more attention to 
     programs for youths who are dependents of members of the 
     Armed Forces by funding the implementation of 20 model 
     community programs to address the needs of such youths.
       (4) The lessons learned from such programs could apply to 
     civilian youth programs as well.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Department of Defense, Federal, State, and local 
     agencies, and businesses and communities involved in 
     conducting youth programs could benefit from the development 
     of partnerships to foster an exchange of ideas, information, 
     and materials relating to such programs and to encourage 
     closer relationships between military installations and the 
     communities that support them;
       (2) such partnerships could benefit all families by helping 
     the providers of services for youth exchange ideas about 
     innovative ways to address barriers to the effective 
     provision of such services; and
       (3) there are many ways that such partnerships could be 
     developed, including--
       (A) cooperation between the Department and Federal and 
     State educational agencies in exploring the use of public 
     school facilities for child care programs and youth programs 
     that are mutually beneficial to the Department and civilian 
     communities and complement programs of the Department carried 
     out at its facilities; and
       (B) improving youth programs that enable adolescents to 
     relate to new peer groups when families of members of the 
     Armed Forces are relocated.
       (c) Report.--Not later than June 30, 1997, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the status of 
     any initiatives undertaken this section, including 
     recommendations for additional ways to improve the youth 
     programs of the Department of Defense and to improve such 
     programs so as to benefit communities in the vicinity of 
     military installations.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Coats and I offer two 
amendments addressing the military's child development programs. The 
first amendment commends the Department of Defense for its successful 
implementation of the Military Child Care Act of 1989. This landmark 
legislation has greatly improved the availability, affordability, 
quality, and consistency of the child care services provided by the 
Department to service members.
  Our second amendment commends the equally important contributions of 
the Department's youth programs in meeting the diverse needs of older 
children and encourages continued progress in this area.
  Before the implementation of the 1989 Act, children of military 
personnel were cared for in substandard facilities and received 
virtually no developmental care. Child care was little more than 
custodial care. Care givers lacked adequate training, were paid less 
than grocery baggers at the base commissary, and had a job turnover 
rate of 300 percent. Worst of all, inadequate oversight led to several 
documented cases of child abuse.
  Since the 1989 Act, developmental care has replaced custodial care 
and is providing military children with a genuine learning environment. 
Successful completion of training by child care providers is now tied 
to wage increases, and the result is a well-trained and highly 
motivated group of care givers. Their job turnover rate has fallen from 
300 percent to 31 percent. Inspections without notice and a national 
hotline to register complaints are now in place to protect the children 
being cared for. In short, the Military Child Care Act has dramatically 
improved the quality of life for thousands of children in military 
families.
  Quality child care is a priority for civilian parents too. It makes 
no sense for civilian child care providers to waste their time and 
valuable resources reinventing wheels that have already been developed 
by the Armed Forces. Military-sponsored internship programs, access to 
training classes on a space-available basis, and assistance with 
accreditation are all cost-effective ways for civilian child care 
providers to benefit from the expertise available in the Department of 
Defense. The Department in turn benefits from an increased number of 
quality civilian child care resources available to its military 
personnel, and from the feedback it receives about its own program.
  Our child care amendment encourages closer partnerships between 
military installations and local communities to encourage an exchange 
of ideas, information, and materials relating to their child care 
experiences. These are simply and cost-effective steps to improve the 
quality of care for all children.
  Older children deserve as much concern about their developmental 
needs as younger children do. Yet military youth programs have not 
received the same level of attention and resources that have been 
available for child care since the passage of the 1989 Act. Youth 
programs are an effective way to combat violence, gangs, and juvenile 
crime by giving young people a place to turn for support and assistance 
in finding positive peer groups and activities.
  The Department of Defense has begun to address these issues by 
funding the implementation of 20 model community programs to meet the 
needs of its youth. Lessons learned in these programs can obviously 
benefit the civilian community too.
  Our youth program amendment encourages continued emphasis on youth 
programs and a similar exchange of information as with child care 
programs.
  The amendment we are proposing today require no additional funding. 
They give the Department of Defense the flexibility to implement 
initiatives that it feels are worthwhile. The Department played a key 
role in the development of those amendments and is enthusiastic about 
implementing them.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of these important amendments 
as a needed step toward improving the quality of life for all children.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague 
Senator Coats for his admirable service as chairman of the Personnel 
Subcommittee. His support for military child care and other quality of 
life programs has had a positive and lasting influence on the lives of 
our men and women in uniform.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4310) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S6918]]

                           Amendment No. 4311

  (Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate on Department of Defense 
            sharing of experiences with military child care)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Kennedy and Coats, I 
offer an amendment which would provide a sense of the Senate that 
military and civilian child care providers could benefit from a greater 
exchange of information and a closer relationship between military 
installations and the local communities that support them.
  I believe this amendment has also been cleared by the other side of 
the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Kennedy, for 
     himself and Mr. Coats, proposes an amendment numbered 4311.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1072. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   SHARING OF EXPERIENCES WITH MILITARY CHILD 
                   CARE.

       (a) Finding.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The Department of Defense should be congratulated on 
     the successful implementation of the Military Child Care Act 
     of 1989 (title XV of Public Law 101-189; 10 U.S.C. 113 note).
       (2) The actions taken by the Department as a result of that 
     Act have dramatically improved the availability, 
     affordability, quality, and consistency of the child care 
     services provided to members of the Armed Forces.
       (3) Child care is important to the readiness of members of 
     the Armed Forces because single parents and couples in 
     military service must have access to affordable child care of 
     good quality if they are to perform their jobs and respond 
     effectively to long work hours or deployments.
       (4) Child care is important to the retention of members of 
     the Armed Forces in military service because the 
     dissatisfaction of the families of such members with military 
     life is a primary reason for the departure of such members 
     from military service.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the civilian and military child care communities, 
     Federal, State, and local agencies, and businesses and 
     communities involved in the provision of child care services 
     could benefit from the development of partnerships to foster 
     an exchange of ideas, information and materials relating to 
     their experiences with the provision of such services and to 
     encourage closer relationships between military installations 
     and the communities that support them;
       (2) such partnerships would be beneficial to all families 
     by helping providers of child care services exchange ideas 
     about innovative ways to address barriers to the effective 
     provision of such services; and
       (3) there are many ways that these partnerships can be 
     developed, including--
       (A) cooperation between the directors and curriculum 
     specialists of military child development centers and 
     civilian child development centers in assisting such centers 
     in the accreditation process;
       (B) use of family support staff to conduct parent and 
     family workshops for new parents and parents with young 
     children in family housing on military installations and in 
     communities in the vicinity of such installations;
       (C) internships in Department of Defense child care 
     programs for civilian child care providers to broaden the 
     base of good-quality child care services in communities in 
     the vicinity of military installations; and
       (D) attendance by civilian child care providers at 
     Department child-care training classes on a space-available 
     basis.
       (c) Report.--Not later than June 30, 1997, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the status of 
     any initiatives undertaken this section, including 
     recommendations for additional ways to improve the child care 
     programs of the Department of Defense and to improve such 
     programs so as to benefit civilian child care providers in 
     communities in the vicinity of military installations.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4311) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4312

 (Purpose: To exclude members of the Selected Reserve assigned to the 
Selective Service System from the limitation on end strength of members 
of the Selected Reserve and to limit the number of members of the Armed 
      Forces who may be assigned to the Selective Service System)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for Senator Thurmond, I offer an 
amendment that would provide continued military support to the 
Selective Service System.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Thurmond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4312.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. 413. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT RELATING TO ASSIGNMENT TO 
                   SERVICE IN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM.

       Section 10 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 
     App. 460) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``, subject to 
     subsection (e),'' after ``to employ such number of civilians, 
     and''; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e)(1) The number of armed forces personnel assigned to 
     the Selective Service System under subsection (b)(2) may not 
     exceed 745, except in a time of war declared by Congress or 
     national emergency declared by Congress or the President.
       ``(2) Members of the Selected Reserve assigned to the 
     Selective Service System under subsection (b)(2) shall not be 
     counted for purposes of any limitation on the authorized 
     strength of Selected Reserve personnel of the reserve 
     components under any law authorizing the end strength of such 
     personnel.''.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I propose an amendment that would 
provide for continued military support to the Selective Service.
  Mr. President, the downsizing of the reserve component force is 
causing the military leadership to reevaluate their ability to continue 
providing support to the Selective Service. This amendment will exempt 
the reservists who are assigned to duty with the Selective Service from 
counting against the selective reserve end strength. In order to 
preclude any part from taking advantage of this exemption, the 
amendment would limit the number of reservists who could be assigned to 
duty with the Selective Service at the 1996 level.
  Mr. President, this is a no-cost amendment which will benefit the 
Selective Service and the reserve component personnel assigned in 
support of the unique mission of the Selective Service. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the 
other side.
  Mr. NUNN. This amendment has been cleared. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4312) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4313

   (Purpose: Relating to the participation of the State of Oregon in 
        remedial actions at the Hanford Reservation, Washington)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. On behalf of Senators Hatfield and Wyden, I offer an 
amendment which would require information associated with cleanup of 
the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State be provided to the 
State of Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Hatfield, 
     for himself and Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4313.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 3161. OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT BY STATE OF 
                   OREGON REGARDING CERTAIN REMEDIAL ACTIONS AT 
                   HANFORD RESERVATION, WASHINGTON.

       (a) Opportunity.--(1) Subject to subsection (b), the Site 
     Manager at the Hanford Reservation, Washington, shall, in 
     consultation with the signatories to the Tri-Party Agreement, 
     provide the State of Oregon an opportunity to review and 
     comment upon any information the Site Manager provides the 
     State of Washington under the Hanford Tri-Party Agreement if 
     the agreement provides for the review of and comment upon 
     such information by the State of Washington.
       (2) In order to facilitate the review and comment of the 
     State of Oregon under paragraph (1), the Site Manager shall 
     provide information referred to in that paragraph to the 
     State of Oregon at the same time, or as soon thereafter as is 
     practicable, that the Site Manager provides such information 
     to the State of Washington.

[[Page S6919]]

       (b) Construction.--This section may not be construed--
       (1) to require the Site Manager to provide the State of 
     Oregon sensitive information on enforcement under the Tri-
     Party Agreement or information on the negotiation, dispute 
     resolution, or State cost recovery provisions of the 
     agreement;
       (2) to require the Site Manager to provide confidential 
     information on the budget or procurement at Hanford under 
     terms other than those provided in the Tri-Party Agreement 
     for the transmission of such confidential information to the 
     State of Washington;
       (3) to authorize the State of Oregon to participate in 
     enforcement actions, dispute resolution, or negotiation 
     actions conducted under the provisions of the Tri-Party 
     Agreement;
       (4) to authorize any delay in the implementation of 
     remedial, environmental management, or other programmatic 
     activities at Hanford; or
       (5) to require the Department of Energy to provide funds to 
     the State of Oregon.

     SEC. 3162. SENSE OF SENATE ON HANFORD MEMORANDUM OF 
                   UNDERSTANDING.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the State of Oregon has the authority to enter into a 
     memorandum of understanding with the State of Washington, or 
     a memorandum of understanding with the State of Washington 
     and the Site Manager of the Hanford Reservation, Washington, 
     in order to address issues of mutual concern to such States 
     regarding the Hanford Reservation; and
       (2) such agreements are not expected to create any 
     additional obligation of the Department of Energy to provide 
     funds to the State of Oregon.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Pacific Northwest is home to what 
many believe is the worst environmental mess on Earth--the Hanford 
Nuclear Reservation. Today, I am pleased to join with my colleague, 
Senator Wyden, to enhance the voice of Oregonians in the cleanup of 
this site of such tremendous importance to the health and safety of our 
State.
  Let me thank the Senators from the State of Washington, Senators 
Gorton and Murray, for their cooperation in resolving the technical 
details of this amendment. I look forward to continuing to the 
cooperative relationship our two States have shared with respect to 
this complex cleanup process.
  Let me also thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
Senator Thurmond, and the ranking member, Senator Nunn, for working 
with Senator Wyden and myself to resolve a number of concerns with this 
amendment.
  The Hanford facility is located on the Columbia River within the 
State of Washington. From the early 1940's to the late 1980's, the U.S. 
Government made plutonium for nuclear weapons at the Hanford site. In 
the process, Hanford emitted enormous volumes of radioactive and 
chemical wastes, much of which found its way--through air or water--
into the State of Oregon.
  Hanford is just 35 miles north of the Oregon border. Not far 
downstream from Hanford, the Columbia River forms the border between 
Oregon and Washington. The cool waters of the Columbia River were vital 
to the locating and operation of the Hanford facility. Hanford used 
large amounts of water from the Columbia to cool nuclear fuel in eight 
reactors between 1944 and 1971. Through the years, those waters 
included high levels of contaminants from Hanford.
  As many of my colleagues on this committee know, the shutdown of the 
weapons production facilities at Hanford and its subsequent cleanup 
efforts have been a top priority of mine during my tenure as a U.S. 
Senator. The waste problem at Hanford has immediate and deadly 
ramifications for the people of Oregon. Some specific areas of concern 
are the transportation of waste to and from the Hanford Reservation, 
the seepage of liquid waste into the Columbia River drainage from 
Hanford's underground storage tanks, and the past aerial releases of 
radioactive gasses from the reservation in the 1940's and 1950's.
  Over the last 10 years, through the energy and water appropriations 
bill, I have been able to stop funding for the operation of the N-
Reactor and Purex facilities at Hanford. I am proud of the fact that 
DOE's mission at Hanford has successfully been refocused from weapons 
production to environmental restoration. While I am pleased with the 
financial priority the Federal Government has placed on the Hanford 
cleanup operation, and recognize improvements in recent months, I share 
the concerns of many of my colleagues that sufficient progress has not 
been made to warrant the billions that have been spent.
  My colleagues are also aware of my concern that Oregon is too far 
removed from the information flow and decision-making process at 
Hanford. More specifically, Oregon does not possess sufficient access 
to information upon which cleanup decisions are made. Nor does Oregon 
have the right to comment upon the important cleanup decisions that are 
made there.
  The amendment now before the Senate will greatly enhance the 
information available to the State of Oregon and the voice of 
Oregonians in the decision-making process at Hanford. The State of 
Oregon will have access to all information required to be provided to 
the State of Washington under the Hanford Tri-Party Agreement. Oregon 
will have notice and comment rights in all instances where the State of 
Washington has such rights. The amendment makes clear that this new 
requirement will not slow cleanup and will not give the State of Oregon 
the right to participate in Tri-Party Agreement negotiations. Finally, 
the amendment makes clear that the States of Oregon and Washington and 
the Department of Energy have the authority to enter into a memorandum 
of understanding on areas of mutual concern to the States with regard 
to this important site.
  Mr. President, under this amendment, Oregonians will at last be 
brought into the loop on Hanford cleanup. We have many decades of 
cleanup ahead of us. Some believe the site will never be clean. It is 
therefore of great importance that Oregonians have meaningful access to 
information about Hanford and the right to comment on that information.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their assistance in this matter and 
urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the amendment that Senator Hatfield and I 
are proposing is a right-to-know act to help protect Oregonians from 
the unusual and highly dangerous hazards that the Hanford Nuclear 
Reservation poses for the people of Oregon.
  There is no other contaminated Federal property in the country that 
has caused the serious injuries to residents of another State that 
Hanford has already caused to citizens of Oregon. And no other Federal 
site currently poses anywhere near as serious a threat to the health 
and safety of citizens of another State as Hanford does to our 
citizens.
  Because of this special situation, the State of Oregon needs direct 
access to the same information that the Energy Department is now 
required to provide the State of Washington under the Hanford Tri-Party 
Agreement. And Oregon needs to have an opportunity to review and 
comment on how DOE proposes to clean up the Hanford site.
  Recognizing the unique conditions present at Hanford and the 
immediate danger they pose for Oregonians does not set a precedent for 
other Federal facilities besides Hanford. It will not turn every 
military base with a leaking gasoline tank into a multi-State cleanup 
issue.
  Let me put that concern to rest. First, there is simply no facility 
in this country--Federal or non-Federal--that compares to Hanford. In 
fact, Hanford is generally considered to be the most contaminated site 
in the Western hemisphere. You would have to go to the former Soviet 
Union to find a site as polluted as Hanford.
  The extent of the environmental problems is mind boggling.
  Over the years, 200 billion gallons of toxic and radioactive liquids 
from nuclear weapons production were dumped at the site. That is enough 
to cover Manhattan to a depth of 40 feet.
  The Hanford site currently contains 56 million gallons of high-level 
radioactive wastes in 177 tanks. Some of these tanks are as big as the 
Capitol dome. At least 54 of these tanks are known or suspected to be 
leaking or pose risks of explosion.
  The site also is currently storing 2,300 metric tons of high-level 
nuclear fuel rods in leaking basins located only a quarter mile from 
the Columbia River.
  And these are just a few of the problems that we know about.
  Second, there is also no other site in the country that has affected 
the

[[Page S6920]]

health and safety of residents in another State the way Hanford has 
affected the citizens of Oregon.
  Oregonians living downwind from Hanford have suffered from thyroid 
cancers and other medical problems caused by airborne releases of 
radioactive iodine. Starting in the late 1940's and continuing through 
the 1950's, these releases averaged between 100 and 2,000 curies per 
month. To put that into perspective, the residents around Harrisburg, 
PA, were evacuated in 1979 when the Three Mile Island accident released 
15-24 curies into the Pennsylvania countryside.
  The airborne releases from Hanford were 10 to 100 times what were 
released from Three Mile Island, and these releases were occurring 
every month. Ongoing epidemiological studies have linked these releases 
to increased cases of thyroid cancer and other adverse health effects 
on Oregonians living near the site.
  Hanford also poses a serious health threat to the more than 1 million 
Oregonians who live downstream from the site. Radioactive materials 
have been released into the Columbia River when water from the River 
was pumped through the sites nuclear reactors to cool them. Other 
hazardous and radioactive materials that were dumped at the site have 
and are continuing to seep into the River.
  The bottom line is many Oregonians are suffering adverse health 
effects from living near Hanford. And many more are at risk of future 
harm because of conditions at the site.
  Finally, our amendment does not set a precedent for Federal 
facilities nationwide because it only requires information to be 
provided to Oregon that is required to be provided to Washington under 
the Hanford Tri-Party Agreement, which is an agreement between the 
State of Washington, the Department of Energy, and the EPA governing 
the Hanford cleanup. The linkage to the Tri-Party Agreement puts the 
site into a special category of Federal facility cleanups, because 
there are only a handful of sites with comparable agreements in effect 
or under negotiation. It draws a bright line that divides Hanford and 
other major DOE weapons production sites from the hundreds of other 
contaminated Federal facilities around the country.
  The unique factors involved in the Hanford cleanup justify granting 
the State of Oregon direct access to information about contamination at 
Hanford and an opportunity for reviewing plans for cleaning up the 
site.
  The State of Washington and its elected representatives in the 
Senate, Senators Gorton and Murray, recognize the importance of this 
amendment to Oregon and have no objection to incorporating the 
amendments in S. 1745.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize how Hanford has harmed and 
continues to pose a serious hazard to the people of Oregon by giving 
our State critical information about conditions at the site and the 
opportunity to play a greater role in cleanup decisions at the site.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I believe this amendment has been cleared on the 
other side.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4313) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4314

   (Purpose: To propose an alternative section 3158 relating to the 
   redesignation of the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste 
                          Management Program)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murkowski, I 
offer an amendment that would modify section 3158 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. The amendment would 
express the sense of Congress that the Department of Energy program 
known as the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management or 
Environmental Management Program be redesignated as the Defense Nuclear 
Waste Management Program. The amendment would retain the reporting 
requirement relating to the program redesignation.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared by both sides.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Murkowski, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4314.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike out section 3158 and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following new section 3158:

     SEC. 3158. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO REDESIGNATION OF 
                   DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE 
                   MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the program of the Department of Energy known as the Defense 
     Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program, and 
     also known as the environmental Management Program, be 
     redesignated as the Defense Nuclear Waste Management Program 
     of the Department of Energy.
       (b) Report on Redesignation.--Not later than January 31, 
     1997, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on the costs and 
     other difficulties, if any, associated with the following:
       (1) The redesignation of the program of known as the 
     Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
     Program, and also known as the Environmental Management 
     Program, as the Defense Nuclear Waste Management Program of 
     the Department of Energy.
       (2) The redesignation of the Defense Environmental 
     Restoration and Waste Management Account as the Defense 
     Nuclear Waste Management Account.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4314) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4315

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Army to complete as soon as 
  is practicable the previously authorized land conveyances involving 
                           Fort Sheridan, IL)

  Mr. NUNN. For Senators Simon and Moseley-Braun, I offer an amendment 
which would complete the land conveyances at Fort Sheridan, IL. I 
believe the amendment has been cleared on the other side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Simon, for 
     himself and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4315.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title XXVIII add the following:

     SEC. 2828. REAFFIRMATION OF LAND CONVEYANCES, FORT SHERIDAN, 
                   ILLINOIS.

       As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall complete the land 
     conveyances involving Fort Sheridan, Illinois, required or 
     authorized under section 125 of the Military Construction 
     Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-32; 109 Stat. 290).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4315) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4316

   (Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance, Crafts Brothers Reserve 
                    Training Center, Manchester, NH)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Smith and Gregg, 
I offer an amendment which would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey 3 acres of property to Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Smith, for 
     himself and Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 4316.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle C of title XXVIII, add the 
     following:

     SEC 2828. LAND CONVEYANCE, CRAFTS BROTHERS RESERVE TRAINING 
                   CENTER, MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

       (a) Conveyance Authorization.--The Secretary of the Army 
     may convey, without consideration, to Saint Anselm College, 
     Manchester, New Hampshire, all right, title, and interest of 
     the United States in and to a parcel of real property, 
     including improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 
     3.5 acres and located on Rockland Avenue in Manchester, New 
     Hampshire, the site of the Crafts Brothers Reserve Training 
     Center.

[[Page S6921]]

       (b) Requirement Relating to Conveyance.--The Secretary may 
     not make the conveyance authorized by subsection (a) until 
     the Army Reserve units currently housed at the Crafts 
     Brothers Reserve Training Center are relocated to the Joint 
     Service Center to be constructed at the Manchester Airport, 
     New Hampshire.
       (c) Requirement for Federal Screening of Property.--The 
     Secretary may not carry out the conveyance of property 
     authorized by subsection (a) unless the Secretary determines 
     that no department or agency of the Federal Government will 
     accept the transfer of the property.
       (d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary.
       (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under this section as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I join today with my friend and colleague 
Senator Gregg in offering an amendment to convey approximately 3.5 
acres of land to Saint Anselm College in Manchester, NH. This land is 
currently owned by the Army, but will soon be vacated upon completion 
of a military construction project that is authorized in this bill.
  Saint Anselm College is a liberal arts college that was founded in 
1889. The college is conducted by the Benedictine Order, and has a 
longstanding relationship with the U.S. Armed Forces. In fact during 
the two world wars, Korea, and Vietnam, members of the Benedictine 
community volunteered to serve as chaplains in the military.
  During World War II, Saint Anselm was among the first colleges to 
participate in the military ``V-1'' program to assist in training young 
men for military service. In March 1943, the college turned its campus 
over to the Army Air Corps which used Saint Anselm as a pre-flight 
school until the end of the war. Members of the faculty were used as 
teachers of the pre-flight cadets in mathematics and science subjects.
  In 1950, Saint Anselm College cooperated with what was then known as 
the ``organized reserve'' to establish an Army reserve unit on campus. 
The organized reserve used college facilities, classrooms in storage 
facilities, and college students served as members of the Reserve in a 
field artillery battery. The U.S. Government incurred no costs for the 
use of these facilities which were provided willingly by the college.
  In 1954, when the Army decided it needed to establish a permanent 
reserve facility, Saint Anselm generously offered a building on campus. 
When none of the on-campus facilities proved suitable to the Corps of 
Engineers, the Army looked elsewhere. In the end, the site ultimately 
determined to be most desirable was on property that was part of the 
Saint Anselm campus.
  Again, the college expressed its willingness to cooperate and sought 
to give the U.S. Government a lease at no cost for as long as the Army 
needed the property. Unfortunately, Government regulations prohibited 
building military structures on leased land. Nonetheless, in its 
continuing effort to cooperate with the needs of the Government, Saint 
Anselm gave the land to the Army free of charge. When the college 
donated the property, it retained an easement for a major sewer line 
that runs through the tract. That sewer line continues to be the 
principal line flowing from the campus to connect with the Manchester 
system.
  Mr. President, Saint Anselm's had two principles in mind when it 
agreed to give this valuable tract of land to the Government. The first 
was that it intended to conduct itself as a good citizen to promote the 
readiness of our country, and the U.S. Army in particular--an 
organization with which the college had a long history of service. The 
second was that students of Saint Anselm College were to be an integral 
part of the plans which the Army had for the new reserve center.
  This relationship did in fact continue, and students of the college 
became part of the reserve unit, receiving their military training, 
earning a commission, and fulfilling their military obligation. In 
fact, more than 50 alumni of Saint Anselm College have given their 
lives in wartime service to the Nation.
  Mr. President, the Army Reserve will soon vacate the crafts brother 
facility and be absorbed into a new joint service reserve center at the 
Manchester Airport. The Army will have no further need for this 
property, which is valued at approximately $300,000. In fact, in this 
bill we are authorizing the final installment on the military 
construction project that will render the property excess. I can think 
of no more fitting or appropriate action than for us to convey this 
land back to Saint Anselm College just as the college so generously 
donated it to the Army some 40 years ago.
  It is my understanding that the Army has no objection to this 
conveyance, and that it is agreeable to the managers on both sides. If 
it is now appropriate, I would move the adoption of this amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the 
other side.
  Mr. NUNN. Let me make sure I know which amendment we are talking 
about now. We are talking about amendment No. 4316--this is the Smith-
Gregg amendment? This amendment has been cleared. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4316) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4317

  (Purpose: To provide for the treatment of the Hanford Reservation, 
 Washington, and other Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities 
 as sites of demonstration projects for the clean-up of Department of 
                   Energy defense nuclear facilities)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Gorton, I offer 
an amendment which would create a pilot program at the Department of 
Energy's Hanford Nuclear Reservation to grant the site manager enhanced 
authorities to accelerate cleanup and direct site operations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Gorton, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4317.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title XXXI, add the following:
  Subtitle E--Environmental Restoration at Defense Nuclear Facilities

     SEC. 3171. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Defense Nuclear 
     Facility Environmental Restoration Pilot Program Act of 
     1996''.

     SEC. 3172. APPLICABILITY.

       (a) In General.--The provisions of this subtitle shall 
     apply to the following defense nuclear facilities:
       (1) Hanford.
       (2) Any other defense nuclear facility if--
       (A) the chief executive officer of the State in which the 
     facility is located submits to the Secretary a request that 
     the facility be covered by the provisions of this subtitle; 
     and
       (B) the Secretary approves the request.
       (b) Limitation.--The Secretary may not approve a request 
     under subsection (a)(2) until 60 days after the date on which 
     the Secretary notifies the congressional defense committees 
     of the Secretary's receipt of the request.

     SEC. 3173. DESIGNATION OF COVERED FACILITIES AS ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   CLEANUP DEMONSTRATION AREAS.

       (a) Designation.--Each defense nuclear facility covered by 
     this subtitle under section 3172(a) is hereby designated as 
     an environmental cleanup demonstration area. The purpose of 
     the designation is to establish each such facility as a 
     demonstration area at which to utilize and evaluate new 
     technologies to be used in environmental restoration and 
     remediation at other defense nuclear facilities.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Federal and State regulatory agencies, members of the 
     surrounding communities, and other affected parties with 
     respect to each defense nuclear facility covered by this 
     subtitle should continue to--
       (1) develop expedited and streamlined processes and systems 
     for cleaning up such facility;
       (2) eliminate unnecessary administrative complexity and 
     unnecessary duplication of regulation with respect to the 
     clean up of such facility;
       (3) proceed expeditiously and cost-effectively with 
     environmental restoration and remediation activities at such 
     facility;
       (4) consider future land use in selecting environmental 
     clean up remedies at such facility; and
       (5) identify and recommend to Congress changes in law 
     needed to expedite the clean up of such facility.

     SEC. 3174. SITE MANAGERS.

       (a) Appointment.--(1)(A) The Secretary shall appoint a site 
     manager for Hanford not

[[Page S6922]]

     later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (B) The Secretary shall develop a list of the criteria to 
     be used in appointing a site manager for Hanford. The 
     Secretary may consult with affected and knowledgeable parties 
     in developing the list.
       (2) The Secretary shall appoint the site manager for any 
     other defense nuclear facility covered by this subtitle not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the approval of the 
     request with respect to the facility under section 
     3172(a)(2).
       (3) An individual appointed as a site manager under this 
     subsection shall, if not an employee of the Department at the 
     time of the appointment, be an employee of the Department 
     while serving as a site manager under this subtitle.
       (b) Duties.--(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in 
     addition to other authorities provided for in this subtitle, 
     the site manager for a defense nuclear facility shall have 
     full authority to oversee and direct operations at the 
     facility, including the authority to--
       (A) enter into and modify contractual agreements to enhance 
     environmental restoration and waste management at the 
     facility;
       (B) request that the Department headquarters submit to 
     Congress a reprogramming package shifting among accounts 
     funds available for the facility in order to facilitate the 
     most efficient and timely environmental restoration and waste 
     management at the facility, and, in the event that the 
     Department headquarters does not act upon the request within 
     30 days of the date of the request, submit such request to 
     the appropriate committees of Congress for review;
       (C) negotiate amendments to environmental agreements 
     applicable to the facility for the Department; and
       (D) manage environmental management and programmatic 
     personnel of the Department at the facility.
       (2) A site manager shall negotiate amendments under 
     paragraph (1)(C) with the concurrence of the Secretary.
       (3) A site manager may not undertake or provide for any 
     action under paragraph (1) that would result in an 
     expenditure of funds for environmental restoration or waste 
     management at the defense nuclear facility concerned in 
     excess of the amount authorized to be expended for 
     environmental restoration or waste management at the facility 
     without the approval of such action by the Secretary.
       (c) Information on Progress.--The Secretary shall regularly 
     inform Congress of the progress made by site managers under 
     this subtitle in achieving expedited environmental 
     restoration and waste management at the defense nuclear 
     facilities covered by this subtitle.

     SEC. 3175. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ORDERS.

       Effective 60 days after the appointment of a site manager 
     for a defense nuclear facility under section 3174(a), an 
     order relating to the execution of environmental restoration, 
     waste management, technology development, or other site 
     operation activities at the facility may be imposed at the 
     facility if the Secretary makes a finding that the order--
       (1) is essential to the protection of human health or the 
     environment or to the conduct of critical administrative 
     functions; and
       (2) will not interfere with bringing the facility into 
     compliance with environmental laws, including the terms of 
     any environmental agreement.

     SEC. 3176. DEMONSTRATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY FOR REMEDIATION OF 
                   DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE.

       (a) In General.--The site manager for a defense nuclear 
     facility under this subtitle shall promote the demonstration, 
     verification, certification, and implementation of innovative 
     environmental technologies for the remediation of defense 
     nuclear waste at the facility.
       (b) Demonstration Program.--To carry out subsection (a), 
     each site manager shall establish a program at the defense 
     nuclear facility concerned for testing environmental 
     technologies for the remediation of defense nuclear waste at 
     the facility. In establishing such a program, the site 
     manager may--
       (1) establish a simplified, standardized, and timely 
     process for the testing and verification of environmental 
     technologies;
       (2) solicit and accept applications to test environmental 
     technology suitable for environmental restoration and waste 
     management activities at the facility, including prevention, 
     control, characterization, treatment, and remediation of 
     contamination;
       (3) consult and cooperate with the heads of existing 
     programs at the facility for the certification and 
     verification of environmental technologies at the facility; 
     and
       (4) pay the costs of the demonstration of such 
     technologies.
       (c) Follow-on Contracts.--(1) If the Secretary and a person 
     demonstrating a technology under the program enter into a 
     contract for remediation of nuclear waste at a defense 
     nuclear facility covered by this subtitle, or at any other 
     Department facility, as a follow-on to the demonstration of 
     the technology, the Secretary shall ensure that the contract 
     provides for the Secretary to recoup from the contractor the 
     costs incurred by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b)(4) 
     for the demonstration.
       (2) No contract between the Department and a contractor for 
     the demonstration of technology under subsection (b) may 
     provide for reimbursement of the costs of the contractor on a 
     cost plus fee basis.
       (d) Safe Harbors.--In the case of an environmental 
     technology demonstrated, verified, certified, and implemented 
     at a defense nuclear facility under a program established 
     under subsection (b), the site manager of another defense 
     nuclear facility may request the Secretary to waive or limit 
     contractual or Department regulatory requirements that would 
     otherwise apply in implementing the same environmental 
     technology at such other facility.

     SEC. 3177. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of the appointment 
     of a site manager under section 3174(a), the site manager 
     shall submit to Congress and the Secretary a report 
     describing the expectations of the site manager with respect 
     to environmental restoration and waste management at the 
     defense nuclear facility concerned by reason of the exercise 
     of the authorities provided in this subtitle. The report 
     shall describe the manner in which the exercise of such 
     authorities is expected to improve environmental restoration 
     and waste management at the facility and identify saving that 
     are expected to accrue to the Department as a result of the 
     exercise of such authorities.

     SEC. 3178. TERMINATION.

       The authorities provided for in this subtitle shall expire 
     five years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3179. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) The term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy.
       (2) The term ``defense nuclear facility'' has the meaning 
     given the term ``Department of Energy defense nuclear 
     facility'' in section 318 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
     (42 U.S.C. 2286g).
       (3) The term ``Hanford'' means the defense nuclear facility 
     located in southeastern Washington State known as the Hanford 
     Reservation, Washington.
       (4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in the far southeastern corner of 
Washington State, workers at the Hanford Reservation helped America win 
World War II and fight the cold war with the strength of our science 
and technological advancements. We did a good job there, but work 
remains--and that is the business of cleanup.
  For years the Department of Energy has managed Hanford, and all of 
its sophisticated problems, with varying degrees of competency. I have 
an amendment today, that has been cleared by the committee, which I 
hope changes the very nature of management at our site.
  A similar version of this amendment appears in the House version of 
the National Defense Authorization Act, thanks to the hard work of the 
Congressman from the Fourth District in Washington, Doc Hastings. His 
dedication to Hanford issues has been unparalleled; his knowledge and 
perseverance profound. I have worked closely with the Congressman, and 
am hopeful that when this bill goes to conference, our work will remain 
intact.
  Let me briefly describe for you the origins of this amendment, and 
what Doc and I are hoping to accomplish.
  For fiscal year 1996, Hanford enjoyed a budget that totaled near $1.7 
billion. With that money, the Department of Energy oversees the cleanup 
of 77 million gallons of the worst stuff on Earth: highly contaminated 
sludge, salt cake, and effluence. DOE employs over 13,000 employees, 
manages 80 percent of the Nation's plutonium and has stewardship of 562 
square miles some of the most beautiful land in Washington State. These 
are tremendous responsibilities, and it is often overlooked just what 
type of impact the Department of Energy has on the livelihood of so 
many Washingtonians and the health of our environment.
  Hanford is run by the Department of Energy, which has a manager who 
oversees all of the site's operations. He makes decisions, everyday, 
impacting the region's economies and its well being. He does everything 
from attend Kiwanis Club functions to deciding if hundreds of rods of 
spent plutonium should be moved away from the Columbia River. It is not 
an easy job, and we in Congress and the Department's headquarters have 
done little to make it easier.
  Let me give you an example of some of the systemic problems which 
Hanford, and its site manager, face. Last year the Hanford site 
manager, John Wagoner, saw the urgent need to move spent plutonium rods 
sitting mere yards from the Columbia River, away from their present 
location to a new and safer home far from the riverbanks. Doing this 
would, of course, cost money--more than the Department allotted for in 
that fiscal year.

[[Page S6923]]

John also knew that there was $30 million available from another 
program at the site that was simply no longer needed. So rather than 
simply moving the money from one of the accounts he oversees to 
another, John was forced to prepare what is known as a reprogramming 
request.
  In a reprogramming request, Department headquarters puts together a 
list of projects complexwide where money needs to be moved from one 
account to another and submit them to the Congress for approval. These 
packages are vetted through departmental budgetary processes and then 
sent expeditiously to Congress for approval. Or so it happens in a 
perfect world. Instead, as we saw with John Wagoner's request last 
summer, the request will languish in a bureaucratic maze. The 
Department has a ploy which goes something like this: Wait for a number 
of requests from the sites to arrive at headquarters and place all of 
them in a reprogramming package and submit them to the various 
committees, so that those that are objectional will be lost in the 
flood of requests. So John sent up his simple request, and he waited. 
And waited. And waited. Almost 7 months went by--while the plutonium 
remained at the river's edge--while someone, somewhere was sitting on 
this request, or ignoring it deep in that concrete bunker known as the 
Forrestal Building.
  I wish I could tell my colleagues that the request was found, its 
importance realized by the Department, and it was rushed to the Hill 
with an eager Department championing its merits. Well, I am sorry to 
report that that scenario never occurred.
  Instead, the contractor-manager of the K-Basin project, a tenacious 
young man named John Fulton, contacted my office for our help. So help 
we did--in fact, I amended last year's defense authorization bill to 
shift funds so that John Wagoner could do the job he needed to do. It 
shouldn't be that way--and all of the explaining DOE cares to do on 
this issue isn't worth the ink it is printed with.
  So what my amendment does is this: it says that if a site manager 
submits a reprogramming request, department headquarters has 30 days to 
do one of the following: First, accept the request and forward it to 
Congress; second, reject the request or; third, simply ask for more 
time to assess its significance.
  Not very strict--and at the end of the day quite reasonable. Now if 
DOE fails to act, then the site manager can take his reprogramming 
request directly to Congress and it can be vetted through the normal 
congressional processes.
  What we accomplish here is simple: Give the site manager in charge of 
a defense nuclear facility the stature he or she deserves. I said 
earlier that Hanford's budget was around $1.7 billion last year. Our 
site manager can move, at his own discretion without headquarters or 
congressional oversight, less than one-third of 1 percent of his total 
budget. In real dollars, that is somewhere near $3 million. The 
responsibility is so disproportional to the authority we invest with 
our site manager, it's no wonder in the past we have had so much 
paperwork and so few results. But that is changing, and the steps taken 
here will spur that progress forward.
  This amendment also directs the Secretary to review just what 
qualifications are necessary for the job of site manager. We need to 
turn the spotlight on the job and give site manager the clout and 
stature his position deserves. It also seems logical that since we are 
altering the responsibilities and authorities vested in the position 
today, the position description needs to be revisited. There is ample 
room here for the Secretary to conduct that review at her discretion. 
Whomever the Secretary appoints to this position, be it the current 
site manager or someone else, that person will have the benefit of the 
Secretary's full trust, as well as the benefit of these extended 
authorities.
  On the matter of new departmental orders, DOE frequently approves 
orders that are cumbersome and unrelated to cleanup activities at the 
site. These orders can contribute to excessive overhead costs. Since 
the Department has taken positive steps to streamline existing orders, 
this provision applies only to future DOE orders by requiring that any 
new order be found by the Secretary of Energy to be essential to human 
health and safety or the fulfillment of critical administrative 
functions.
  Finally, the deployment of innovative and new technologies at Hanford 
is one of the site's major accomplishments over the past year. The site 
manager is required to promote the demonstration, verification, 
certification and implementation of innovative environmental 
technologies at the facility. New technologies will enable the 
Department to achieve cleanup at a heightened pace, and with real cost 
savings to the American taxpayer.
  I am happy that my colleagues in the Senate have approved my 
amendment, and look forward to seeing this bill signed into law.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared. I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4317) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4318

  (Purpose: To provide funds for the construction and improvement of 
         certain reserve facilities in the State of Washington)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Gorton, I offer 
an amendment which would authorize certain military construction 
projects for the Navy and Army Reserves in the State of Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Gorton, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4318.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title XXVI of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 2602. FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF 
                   RESERVE CENTERS IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.

       (a) Funding.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     of the funds appropriated under the heading ``Military 
     Construction, Naval Reserve'' in the Military Construction 
     Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-307; 108 Stat. 
     1661), that are available for the construction of a Naval 
     Reserve Center in Seattle, Washington--
       (1) $5,200,000 shall be available for the construction of 
     an Army Reserve Center at Fort Lawton, Washington, of which 
     $700,000 may be used for program and design activities 
     relating to such construction;
       (2) $4,200,000 shall be available for the construction of 
     an addition to the Naval Reserve Center in Tacoma, 
     Washington;
       (3) $500,000 shall be available for unspecified minor 
     construction at Naval Reserve facilities in the State of 
     Washington; and
       (4) $500,000 shall be available for planning and design 
     activities with respect to improvements at Naval Reserve 
     facilities in the State of Washington.
       (b) Modification of Land Conveyance Authority.--Paragraph 
     (2) of section 127(d) of the Military Construction 
     Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 
     1666), is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Before commencing construction of a facility to be 
     the replacement facility for the Naval Reserve Center under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall comply with the 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to such facility.''.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe the amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  Mr. NUNN. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4318) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4319

    (Purpose: To increase penalties for certain traffic offenses on 
                        military installations)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Thurmond and 
Nunn, I offer an amendment which would increase the penalties for 
certain traffic offenses on Federal property.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S6924]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Thurmond, 
     for himself, and Mr. Nunn, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4319.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1072. INCREASE IN PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN TRAFFIC OFFENSES 
                   ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

       Section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1948 (40 U.S.C. 318c) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``Sec. 4. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever 
     shall violate any rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to 
     section 2 of this Act may be fined not more than $50 or 
     imprisoned for not more than thirty days, or both.
       ``(b) Whoever shall violate any rule or regulation for the 
     control of vehicular or pedestrian traffic on military 
     installations that is promulgated by the Secretary of 
     Defense, or the designee of the Secretary, under the 
     authority delegated pursuant to section 2 of this Act may be 
     fined an amount not to exceed the amount of a fine for a like 
     or similar offense under the criminal or civil law of the 
     State, territory, possession, or district where the military 
     installation is located, or imprisoned for not more than 
     thirty days, or both.''.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared, and I urge 
its approval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4319) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4320

 (Purpose: To extend the term of the remaining transitional member of 
        the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thurmond, I offer 
an amendment which would extend the term of the remaining transitional 
member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Thurmond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4320.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 1061 add the following:
       (c) Repeal of 13-Year Special Limit on Term of Transitional 
     Judge of United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 
     Forces.--(1) Subsection (d)(2) of section 1301 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 
     1991 (Public Law 101-189; 103 Stat. 1575; 10 U.S.C. 942 note) 
     is amended by striking out ``to the judges who are first 
     appointed to the two new positions of the court created as of 
     October 1, 1990--'' and all that follows and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``to the judge who is first appointed to one of 
     the two new positions of the court created as of October 1, 
     1990, as designated by the President at the time of 
     appointment, the anniversary referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     of that paragraph shall be treated as being the seventh 
     anniversary and the number of years referred to in 
     subparagraph (B) of that paragraph shall be treated as being 
     seven.''.
       (2) Subsection (e)(1) of such section is amended by 
     striking out ``each judge'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``a 
     judge''.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared. I would 
like to note for the Record that Mr. Effron, who has worked on a number 
of these amendments, recused himself from any consideration of this 
amendment since his name has been sent up as a member of the Court of 
Military Appeals, if approved by the Senate. So, Mr. Effron played no 
part in this amendment whatsoever, and it was cleared by other staff 
members. I think that should be noted for the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4320) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4321

(Purpose: To prohibit the collection and release of detailed satellite 
     imagery with respect to Israel and other countries and areas)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Kyl and 
Bingaman, I offer an amendment which would prohibit the collection and 
release of detailed satellite imagery with respect to Israel and any 
other country or geographic area designated by the President for this 
purpose. However, satellite imagery that is no more detailed or precise 
than satellite imagery of the country or geographic area concerned that 
is routinely available from commercial sources may be released.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Kyl, for 
     himself, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4321.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1043. PROHIBITION ON COLLECTION AND RELEASE OF DETAILED 
                   SATELLITE IMAGERY RELATING TO ISRAEL AND OTHER 
                   COUNTRIES AND AREAS.

       (a) Collection and Dissemination.--No department or agency 
     of the Federal Government may license the collection or 
     dissemination by any non-Federal entity of satellite imagery 
     with respect to Israel, or to any other country or geographic 
     area designated by the President for this purpose, unless 
     such imagery is no more detailed or precise than satellite 
     imagery of the country or geographic area concerned that is 
     routinely available from commercial sources.
       (b) Declassification and Release.--No department or agency 
     of the Federal Government may declassify or otherwise release 
     satellite imagery with respect to Israel, or to any other 
     country or geographic area designated by the President for 
     this purpose, unless such imagery is no more detailed or 
     precise than satellite imagery of the country or geographic 
     area concerned that is routinely available from commercial 
     sources.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New 
Mexico, Senator Jeff Bingaman, to offer an amendment which would,

       prohibit any department or agency of the federal government 
     from issuing licenses for the collection and dissemination of 
     satellite imagery with respect to Israel, or any other 
     country or geographic area concerned that is routinely 
     available from commercial sources. The amendment further 
     prohibits the declassification or otherwise release of 
     satellite imagery with respect to Israel, or to any other 
     country or geographic area designated by the President for 
     this purpose, unless such imagery is no more detailed or 
     precise than satellite imagery of the country or geographic 
     area concerned that is routinely available from commercial 
     sources.

  This amendment is necessary, Mr. President, because on February 24, 
1995, President William J. Clinton issued Executive Order 12951, which 
authorized the release of ``certain scientifically or environmentally 
useful imagery acquired by space-based national intelligence 
reconnaissance systems known as the Corona, Argon, and Lanyard 
missions.'' The Executive order is scheduled to come into effect 18 
months after issuance, that is on August 24, 1996.
  This broadly written, and seemingly harmless, Executive order could 
unintentionally have a deleterious impact on the national security of 
the state of Israel. The Corona series of images contains spy-quality 
2-meter resolution details of some of Israel's sensitive fixed target 
facilities, such as air bases and scientific installations. Enemies of 
Israel could use the photos released under Executive Order 12951 to 
target Israel for long-range attacks or assaults by terrorists.
  Mr. Presidents, in 1994 I was pleased to moderate an agreement 
between Orbcom, a private company seeking to sell high-resolution 
commercial satellite imagery, and supporters of Israel, which resulted 
in Orbcom volunteering not to image Israel. I applauded Orbcom's 
decision in 1994, and I applaud it again today, reflecting as it does a 
keen understanding that images of Israel represent a unique and 
potentially ominous threat to its national security. This is not 
precisely the same issue, but it is my hope that the executive branch 
will work out an agreement with Israel regarding the release of these 
photos. Unfortunately, to date, little progress has been made in the 
negotiations.
  I understand there will be those who oppose this action, claiming 
that the commercial market will be stifled. The Commerce Department 
claims that the Russians are today selling 2-meter resolution images. I 
know that the Russians have indicated a willingness to do

[[Page S6925]]

this, but I have not seen any evidence that this has actually occurred. 
And France's policy is still to restrict French SPOT imagery to no less 
than 5-meter resolution. Rather than driving the market to even higher 
resolution imagery, I believe the United States should establish a 
memorandum of understanding with France and Russia regarding the type 
and quality of images to be released publicly. Without such an 
agreement, we may be creating risk where none exists today and 
potentially undermining the security of our friend and ally, Israel.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Kyl's 
amendment with regard to the collection and release of intelligence 
quality imagery of Israel and other countries.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona and I have been working on 
this issue since he was in the House and serving on the House Armed 
Services Committee. Back in 1994, when it first came to our attention 
that a United States firm which was then called Eyeglass was planning 
to enter into an agreement with a Saudi firm, EIRAD, to establish a 
ground station in Riyadh that would be capable of receiving and 
distributing spy-satellite quality imagery of Israel throughout the 
Middle East, we organized letters from House and Senate Members urging 
the administration to reject this proposal. Over 60 Senators signed the 
Senate version of the letter in October 1994. A similar large number of 
House Members signed the letter organized by then Congressman Kyl.
  Mr. President, that problem was ultimately resolved in May 1995 with 
an exchange of letters between the Commerce Department and the firm, by 
then called Orbimage, in which the firm agreed to exclude the territory 
of Israel from its viewing area and to put a technical fix on the 
satellite that would prevent such viewing. With that assurance, the 
Commerce Department agreed to the rest of the EIRAD deal.
  Unfortunately, that did not solve Israel's problem because there are 
several other United States firms who are planning to launch so-called 
commercial imaging satellites with resolutions at ground level as low 
as one meter. Israel, as one of our closest allies, has been working 
with the administration for the past year, to see if its concerns can 
be accommodated under the licenses of the other potential American 
operators of commercial high-resolution satellites. Frankly, the 
industry and the Commerce Department have been resisting these 
reasonable requests while many in the national security agencies have 
been trying to extend the policy established in the Orbimage case.
  Why is Israel concerned? Israel is a small country that takes 
its security very, very seriously. It has enjoyed total air superiority 
over its territory for decades. A lot of its qualitative advantage over 
its numerically superior potential foes derives from its control of its 
airspace and the inability of its foes to find, let alone target 
critical defense facilities. Obviously, the United States and the 
former Soviet Union were able to image Israel with their spy 
satellites, as they were able to image the entire globe. But those spy 
photos were not shared with Israel's foes, certainly ours were not.

  Now with the end of the cold war the United States is leading the way 
toward commercialization of what once was a treasured secret. There is 
a technological imperative to do this because as a result of decades of 
Federal investment and many billions of Federal dollars, our firms 
clearly have a technological lead. Israel finds this very threatening. 
It has asked for our help in preserving its qualitative edge as long as 
possible. I believe we should give our friend this help. Doing so is 
clearly permitted under the administration's 1994 policy on commercial 
high-resolution imaging. As the Eyeglass/Orbimage case demonstrated and 
as the 1992 Remote Sensing Act envisioned, the U.S. Government retains 
the right to control the shutters of our commercial satellites for 
foreign policy and national security reasons.
  This is a time for such control.
  Mr. President, the argument against granting Israel's request was 
summed up in an editorial in this week's Space News. It claims that our 
whole nascent industry will come crashing down if this precedent is 
set. That frankly is hogwash. Our industry cannot and should not try to 
make profits by providing spy satellite images of Israel to Syria and 
Libya and Iraq and Iran. If they ever thought that market would be 
allowed to them, they were misreading the Congress. As I said earlier, 
the precedent was set in the Eyeglass case that we would go the extra 
mile for Israel's security.
  There are a very limited number of similar cases around the globe. 
Our policy will ultimately have to deal with those as well, for 
instance South Korea and Bosnia where Americans are deployed. But the 
vast majority of the Earth's surface will be available to our imaging 
firms if there really is a multibillion-dollar commercial market for 
geographic information systems with 1 meter resolution. I have my 
doubts about the size of that market, as apparently many investors do 
as well. But if it's there, excluding Israel from it for the next 
decade or so will do no damage to our firms' prospects or profits.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am told this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared, and I urge 
its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4321) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4322

(Purpose: To make funds available for research, development, test, and 
 evaluation activities relating to humanitarian demining technologies)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4322.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 204. FUNDS FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 
                   EVALUATION RELATING TO HUMANITARIAN DEMINING 
                   TECHNOLOGIES.

       Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 
     201(4), $18,000,000 shall be available for research, 
     development, test, and evaluation activities relating to 
     humanitarian demining technologies (PE0603120D), to be 
     administered by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
     Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the managers of the 
bill, Chairman Thurmond and Senator Nunn, have accepted my amendment to 
increase the budget of the Humanitarian Demining Technologies Program 
to $18 million for fiscal year 1997. This represents about a $10 
million increase above the President's request, but my amendment is 
supported by the Department of Defense. I have no doubt, based on the 
inquiries I have received from other Senators who have expressed 
support for this effort, that if there were a rollcall vote on the 
amendment it would pass overwhelmingly, if not unanimously. I also want 
to thank Senators Thurmond and Nunn for finding an acceptable offset 
for my amendment in the Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration 
Program--PE#0603750D.
  Adequate funding for demining technologies is urgently needed, as the 
experience of our troops in Bosnia has so graphically illustrated. They 
found themselves surrounded by millions of hidden landmines that had 
been scattered randomly over the countryside, with virtually no way to 
locate them besides hand-held metal detectors and probes. This is the 
same technology that has been used for decades, and although effective, 
it is terribly time consuming and dangerous.
  Bosnia is just one example. There is wide recognition that the 
problem of unexploded landmines, particularly in countries where our 
troops are most likely to be sent on peacekeeping missions, has reached 
crisis proportions. There are an estimated 100 million of these hidden 
killers in over 60 countries, each one waiting to explode from

[[Page S6926]]

the pressure of a footstep. Many of them are made of plastic, and 
cannot be detected with standard metal detecting equipment. The cost of 
locating and destroying the mines is immense, in both dollars and 
lives.
  A great deal of money has been spent to develop more and more 
sophisticated landmines, and to develop countermine warfare technology 
to enable our forces to breach enemy minefields. But cutting a path 
through a minefield quickly and safely is a very different problem from 
humanitarian demining, which involves getting rid of every single mine 
in a large area. That is the only way to assure the local population 
that it is safe to return. Yet until this program, almost nothing had 
been done to improve the technology for demining. Imagine the time it 
takes to demine an area the size of half of Angola with a hand-held 
probe, where there are an estimated 10 million mines, or Bosnia, where 
there are 3 million mines. It will take generations.
  The generally accepted estimate of the cost of demining is from $300 
to $1,000 per mine, when you factor in the cost of training and 
equipment. That is obviously completely unaffordable for countries like 
Bosnia or Angola.

  The Pentagon's Humanitarian Demining Technologies Program was started 
2 years ago with $10 million that I requested in the Fiscal Year 1995 
Defense Appropriations bill. It was supported by Chairman Thurmond and 
Senator Nunn at that time. For the past 2 years, the program, which is 
managed by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 
Operations and Low Intensity Conflict [SOLIC] and is located at Fort 
Belvoir, has been supporting research and conducting tests on a wide 
range of demining technologies. Some of them have been put to use by 
our troops in Bosnia.
  Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet solution to the mine 
problem, because there are so many variables. Mines are scattered in 
jungles, rivers, sandy deserts and mountainous terrain. The purpose of 
the Humanitarian Demining Technologies Program is to pursue any 
promising concept. We are not looking for high-tech solutions, although 
we do not rule them out. It will require a combination of technologies 
to locate the mines in such varied conditions. Most important, we need 
technologies that are appropriate for low budget operations in places 
where spare parts may be unavailable.
  The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Special Operations and Low 
Intensity Conflict is the appropriate overseer of this program. Unlike 
the Army, which does not have a demining mission, SOLIC also manages 
the Humanitarian Demining Program which sends U.S. military personnel 
overseas to train foreign personnel in landmine clearance. SOLIC has 
been a proponent of efforts to rid the world of mines, and has done a 
good job of managing the demining technologies program so far. My 
amendment assures that it will continue to do so.
  Mr. President, the United States cannot solve this problem by itself. 
It is going to require the involvement and resources of the 
international community. But we have capabilities that other nations do 
not, and there is intense interest in the private sector to develop 
better demining technology. Every week, my office receives inquiries 
from representatives of private industry who have ideas about how to do 
this. Some are impractical, others are promising. This program aims to 
separate the wheat from the chaff, and I am confident that this 
relatively small investment in funds will reap real rewards for our 
troops and millions of innocent civilians.
  I thank Chairman Thurmond and Senator Nunn for their support, and the 
Defense Department for its support and recognition of the need to 
intensify and expand this program. I ask unanimous consent that a 
Department of Defense position paper expressing support for my 
amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO S. 1745--SASC VERSION OF THE FY97 DEFENSE 
                           AUTHORIZATION BILL

       Amendment Number:
       Service Affected: OSD, Army.
       Statement of Amendment: The amendment would make available 
     $18 million for research, redevelopment, test and evaluation 
     activities relating to humanitarian demining technologies to 
     be administered by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
     Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict.
       Effect of Amendment: This amendment would increase the 
     funding level of the humanitarian research and development 
     program, and in truth, accelerate the development and testing 
     of additional systems and equipment to determine with 
     reliability the presence of minefields, detect mines and 
     discriminate between mines and other objects, and facilitate 
     volume clearance of mines with increased safety and 
     reliability. The amendment would also allow new states that 
     explore solutions in higher technology areas that are 
     unaffordable at budgeted levels.
       DoD Position: Support:
       On May 16, 1996, the President announced an initiative to 
     ``significantly expand'' DoD's humanitarian demining program.
       The additional funds will accelerate the development and 
     the availability of highly effective systems equipment for 
     Humanitarian demining.
       This amendment will allow the Department to implement a 
     robust research, development, test, and evaluation program 
     for humanitarian demining.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I also ask that the Record reflect that 
Senator Boxer is a cosponsor of my amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I understand this amendment has been cleared 
on the other side of the aisle. The purpose of this amendment is to 
increase the funding for RDT&E related to humanitarian demining 
technologies to $18 million from the requested and authorized $7.746 
million and provide for it to be administered by the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict.
  I understand this amendment has been cleared. I urge its adoption.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. It has been cleared. I urge adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4322) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe that is the end of the 
cleared amendments. We have made, I think, significant progress, and I 
just hope that we can continue to make progress on this bill so that we 
will be able to finish it in the next 2 days.
  Mr. NUNN. I share that sentiment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 4090

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to 
discuss an amendment that is pending, as I understand it, and has been 
reviewed in some conversations on the floor. I want to make sure the 
record is clear, because I think in the process of comments, I have 
been accused of holding up an amendment. I want to make sure that 
everyone clearly understands my position.
  I support the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia which would help address the problem of the stalking of 
military personnel and their families. Although limited in scope, this 
amendment builds on the stalking legislation in the Violence Against 
Women Act, enacted as part of the 1994 Anticrime Act, which I strongly 
supported.
  That act represented an important national commitment to eliminate 
domestic violence, a plague that undermines the security, health, and 
future of millions of American women and their families.
  Currently, all 50 States have stalking laws on the books, and these 
are primary legal tools for addressing the problem of stalking, but the 
Federal statute also is important in addressing certain types of 
interstate stalking. Yet, the current Federal statute is drawn narrowly 
and applies only to a spouse or someone who can be described as an 
intimate partner.
  This amendment would expand the statute to include anyone, including 
a stranger, who travels across State lines with the intent to injure or 
harass or coerce or verbally abuse any member of the Armed Forces or 
their immediate family.
  I think it makes sense to include strangers in the scope of the 
Federal statute, Mr. President, because not all

[[Page S6927]]

stalkers are related to their victims, and anyone victimized by this 
crime deserves protection, no matter who is doing the stalking.
  I also think it should not matter who is being stalked, so I support 
covering all stalking victims, not just those who are in the Armed 
Forces.
  Still, Mr. President, I support this amendment as a limited, but 
positive, step forward, even though I would like it to go further.
  Some of my colleagues may wonder why we are considering an amendment 
on stalking on a Defense Department authorization bill. In fact, the 
House of Representatives has already approved a bill similar to this 
amendment, but that applies to all stalking victims, not just military 
personnel. That bill is ready for floor action here in the Senate.
  I have written to the majority leader to urge that the legislation be 
taken up as soon as possible. I also indicated in my letter that I 
would like an opportunity to amend the bill in order to strengthen the 
protections that it fundamentally is recommending.
  My amendment is very simple. It would prohibit any person who has 
been convicted of domestic violence from possessing a firearm. The 
amendment says, pretty simply, that those who beat their wives, who 
abuse their children ought not to have a gun, period. That is the way I 
see it.
  Mr. President, in my view, that would greatly strengthen the 
antistalking law, and it is a logical complement to it. I have been 
hoping that both my proposal and the antistalking proposal could be 
enacted together.
  Mr. President, we have heard about the appropriateness of my 
amendment on this and why it should not be. Mr. President, I would ask 
why an antistalking amendment of this general nature belongs on a 
defense bill anyway. I can understand it and would support it because I 
think whatever we do to protect the health and well-being of our 
citizens ought to be considered top priority and injected wherever it 
can be.
  So, Mr. President, the thing that I find confusing is, why is it OK 
to protect people from stalking but not to protect those abused wives 
and children from a man, husband, or intimate who flies into a rage, 
rage enough to beat up a woman, beat up a child, and say, ``Well, 
perhaps that wouldn't be acceptable here.'' Let us find out. Let us 
find out. Let us have a vote instead of these kinds of personal 
accusations, ``He's holding it up.''
  Senator Lautenberg is not holding up this legislation. I want the 
record to be perfectly clear. Those accusations do nothing to further 
the cause of protection of women and their families.
  Let us face it, the majority has declined to give me an opportunity 
to have this amendment heard. Why? Is it because people on that side of 
the aisle, maybe even some on this side, are afraid to say no, that 
someone ought to have a gun even though they are a wife beater and can 
fly into a rage at any time, rage enough to beat up a woman. You see 
scars and abuse, physically, on women constantly.
  Courts have an inclination, we unfortunately find, to dismiss charges 
against wife beaters, saying, ``Well, he's really not a criminal. You 
know, he just lost his temper.'' As a matter of fact, in Baltimore, not 
far from here, a man who murdered his wife was sentenced to weekends in 
jail and not a long time on probation. Why? Because the judge said, 
``How can you give a noncriminal a criminal conviction?''
  So, Mr. President, what we are looking at here is process, not 
protection. In my view, this antistalking legislation is important, and 
so is the ``no guns for wife beaters and child abusers.'' It ought to 
be enacted together.
  The junior Senator from Texas has been opposed to that. As a matter 
of fact, in conversations that we have had, she suggested, well, it 
will not pass. Let us find out. You know what I would like to do? I 
would like to have the public find out. I would like them to see who is 
going to vote to continue gun possession by wife beaters, by child 
abusers. That is what I want the public to see. But the junior Senator 
from Texas said, no, we will keep that little secret among us. We do 
not want that on this bill.

  It is time to fish or cut bait, I think, Mr. President. The concern 
is, it is too controversial, apparently, to take guns out of the hands 
of wife beaters and child abusers. That concept is just too 
controversial.
  It is hard for me to believe that many of my colleagues, even those 
who generally oppose gun control, really believe that wife beaters and 
child abusers should have guns. At least until now no Senator--no 
Senator--has been willing to stand on the floor and explain to me why 
they disagree with my proposal. I would like to hear the Senator from 
Texas explain why it is a bad idea besides, ``It's a process, and 
perhaps we'll never get it through.'' Let us find out. Are we 
interested in politics, or are we interested in protection?
  Mr. President, my amendment does not propose broad controls on 
firearms. At its heart it is a proposal to reduce domestic violence. 
That is why it is so strongly supported by people like the National 
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Network to End 
Domestic Violence, and many others who are concerned about the problem 
of domestic violence.
  So, Mr. President, I continue to hope that we can enact both the 
broad antistalking proposal and my legislation to keep guns away from 
wife beaters and child abusers. I hope that the majority will permit 
the full Senate to take up these proposals without delay.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am, I have to say, disappointed that 
the Senator from New Jersey did not come to the floor to say that he 
would take his hold off the antistalking bill that he made a great 
statement of support for. I had hoped that he would come and do that, 
because when he first put his hold on the bill, I thought that perhaps 
we could work something out so that he would be able to have his gun 
amendment on some piece of legislation.
  In fact, his amendment has not been cleared through the Judiciary 
Committee and has not gone through the process. I hope that it will be 
able to be heard in the Judiciary and be able to have its day in court.
  But he is mixing apples and oranges when he says that he wants the 
bill to go through with his amendment on it. That is not the option we 
have before us. The Senator from New Jersey well knows that it is not 
that his amendment will not pass. I do not know if it will pass or it 
will not. It is that his amendment will keep my bill to protect women 
and children who are victims of harassment and threats, who are victims 
of people who cross interstate boundaries, my bill will not be brought 
up. That is the effect of his hold on my bill.
  I would love to see Senator Lautenberg go to the Judiciary Committee, 
comply with the rules that everyone else complies with, and let the 
Judiciary Committee take his amendment, do with it as it will. But for 
him to say that he requires that his amendment be taken up with this 
bill, which has been cleared by 99 Members of the Senate, I think is a 
smokescreen.

  I hope that Senator Lautenberg, who professes to agree with the 
merits of this bill, will in fact let this bill go before this week is 
out. This bill has been pending for a month. He knows it will not be 
brought up with an amendment. So why not provide the protections that 
are going to be provided in this Armed Services authorization bill for 
people in the military and on military bases for every other woman and 
child that might be a victim of this kind of harassment around the 
country?
  I implore the Senator from New Jersey to lift his hold on this bill, 
to go through the Judiciary Committee, as this bill already has, and 
join with every Member of the House of Representatives and every Member 
of the U.S. Senate and send this bill to the President.
  We have every reason to believe that the President will sign this 
bill, and he would do it quickly. We would provide those protections 
immediately for the women and children who have known the threats and 
the harassment and the terror that not only has been perpetrated on 
people around this country, but, in fact, the sad thing is, Mr.

[[Page S6928]]

President, because we do not have all of the tools to prevent this 
harassment, the threats have in some cases been realized. In fact, 
women have been murdered in this country by people who have been 
threatening for months, but we did not have the ability to stop the 
threat because we did not have the laws on the books that recognized 
that this could, in fact, lead up to an actual crime. Now we have the 
ability to do something about this, and Senator Lautenberg is holding 
that bill up. He is holding it hostage for another amendment.

  We do not have to argue the merits of his amendment. All we have to 
argue is whether he will allow my bill to come to the floor, my bill 
which has been cleared by every other Member of the Senate and the 
House. Senator Feinstein had an amendment that she wanted to add to 
this bill, and I asked her if she would allow her amendment to go on 
another bill and let this bill go. She was a wonderful person. She 
said, ``Of course I will,'' because she understands that getting this 
amount of help for the women and children who are victims of harassment 
and threats in this country is a worthy goal, and she sees it could be 
realized. She did step back on her amendment.
  Senator Gramm asked if he could put on a very good amendment that 
would require a registration and notification capability for a person 
that would move into a neighborhood that had a record of conviction for 
harassment or even actual sexual crimes against a child. He asked that 
amendment be put on. It is a great amendment. It is an amendment I am a 
cosponsor of. He agreed to step aside, because this was a unanimous 
agreement that we could come to and he did not want to hold up the 
progress of the bill.
  Senator Gramm and Senator Feinstein both asked for amendments that 
were good amendments, amendments I support, to be put on this bill, but 
because it would have to go back to the House, they agreed not to put 
their amendments on this bill so it could go directly to the President. 
I hope Senator Lautenberg will hear my plea and the plea of Joy 
Silverman, who was here, who is a victim herself, and others around the 
country who might be protected if Senator Lautenberg would lift this 
hold. I urge Senator Lautenberg to do that. I ask unanimous consent 
that he be allowed to be named a cosponsor of my bill. I would love for 
him to be a part of this effort.
  Mr. President, Senator Lautenberg still has the opportunity to lift 
his hold and do what is right on this bill, just as Senator Feinstein 
and Senator Gramm have done. I hope he will see his way clear to do 
that before tomorrow so the President can sign this bill and it will 
not have to go back to the House and we will have more protection on 
the books for women and children in this country who are victims today 
of threats and harassment that could be realized if we do not give them 
the tools to protect themselves.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
yeas and nays on the Warner-Hutchison second-degree antistalking 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge adoption of the antistalking amendment and the 
underlying Kempthorne amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4090.
  The amendment (No. 4090) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 4089

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4089, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 4089), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South 
Carolina and the Senator from Georgia for clearing this amendment. I 
want to particularly thank Senator Warner and Senator Kempthorne. When 
I was not able to get the full stalking bill through that would protect 
every woman and child in America from interstate stalking, it was 
Senator Warner who came forward and said, ``Well, let us make sure that 
our military personnel have this, and we will take the next part of 
this up another day.''
  So I am very thankful to Senator Warner and Senator Kempthorne for 
their great leadership in providing the stalking protection for the 
women and children in the armed services and everyone who is on a 
military base. This is a great step forward. I applaud them in their 
leadership, and I hope this encourages Mr. Lautenberg to help us do the 
full job.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4266

 (Purpose: To limit the total amount authorized to be appropriated by 
  the bill to the amount requested by the President and to apply the 
                      excess to budget reduction)

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 4266.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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:

       After section 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 4. GENERAL LIMITATION.

       (a) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the total amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     this Act may not exceed the amount requested by the President 
     for fiscal year 1997 for the national security activities of 
     the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy in the 
     budget submitted to Congress by the President for that fiscal 
     year under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.
       (b) Allocation of Reductions.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall allocate reductions in authorizations of appropriations 
     that are necessary as a result of the application of the 
     limitation set forth in subsection (a) so as not to 
     jeopardize the military readiness of the Armed Forces or the 
     quality of life of Armed Forces personnel.
       (c) Excess Authorizations To Be Used for Deficit 
     Reduction.--The reduction under subsection (a) of the total 
     amount that, except for that subsection, would otherwise be 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1997 by this 
     Act shall be applied to reduce the budget deficit for fiscal 
     year 1997.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on 
this amendment be limited to 1 hour equally divided in the usual form, 
that no amendments be in order, and that following the use or yielding 
back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment we are now debating, 
which I propose with Senator Harkin from Iowa, is an amendment to the 
1997 defense authorization bill to eliminate the nearly $13 billion in 
extra military spending that the Armed Services Committee has 
authorized above what was requested by the President, the Secretary of 
Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and to use the 
funds to reduce the deficit.
  The total funding authorized, $267.4 billion, is well above what the 
President had requested. It is also about $1.7 billion above the 
Republican budget resolution that was passed earlier, a month or two 
ago.
  Mr. President, let me repeat that. The total funding authorized, 
$267.4 billion, is well above the President's request. It is also $1.7 
billion above the

[[Page S6929]]

Republican budget resolution passed earlier, a month or two ago.
  At the request of the Republican leadership, the committee has 
authorized $12.9 billion more than was requested. That is right. The 
majority wants to spend $12.9 billion more than the Pentagon has 
requested, or than they have indicated they will be able to responsibly 
use next year.
  So we have a proposal here that calls for almost $13 billion more 
than the Pentagon actually wants. About $4.6 billion of that figure was 
not included in the Pentagon's 5-year plan, and much of that was not 
even on the so-called wish lists that were solicited by the 
congressional defense committees. The Pentagon has said clearly that 
they do not need these funds now. The projects are not in their 5-year 
plan, and they are not even on their wish list.
  My amendment seeks to redirect these billions in wasteful and 
unnecessary Pentagon spending, and instead put all of the money into 
deficit reduction.
  Mr. President, about a year ago, the Pentagon's own spending 
watchdog, its comptroller general, John Hamre, conceded that the 
Department of Defense could not account for about $13 billion in 
spending. It has just been lost in an ocean of paperwork at the 
Pentagon and likely will not be sorted out. In fact, the comptroller 
has all but given up on trying to find out what happened to most of the 
money, arguing that it would be more expensive than it would be worth 
to account for these funds.
  They cannot even find out what has happened to about $13 billion in 
the Pentagon's budget. Coincidentally, the bill provides about $13 
billion more than was requested by the Pentagon.
  Mr. President, while I appreciate the symmetry here, it is 
particularly outrageous that the Armed Services Committee has proposed 
these hefty increases at the same time that the Defense Department is 
being called to task for not being able to account for billions of 
dollars in its own spending. Waste, possible fraud in Pentagon 
spending, and certainly egregious abuses of basic accounting rules. 
These are serious problems. But no one seems to be doing very much 
about them. Indeed, instead of vigorously overseeing spending in this 
budget, we are trying to foist off on the Pentagon an extra $13 billion 
in military hardware and other spending that they have not requested. 
We should instead use this money for deficit reduction.
  If we pass this bill without my amendment, my Minnesota constituents 
will continue to pay their taxes to bolster the Treasury of bloated 
defense contractors, who are building ships and planes and weapon 
systems that we do not need, cannot use, and that will not make our 
Nation any more secure.
  Mr. President, so there is no mistake, let me repeat that for those 
who are listening.
  We are considering today a defense bill that wants to spend a full 
$13 billion more than the President has requested in his budget. We are 
doing this despite the fact that there is no sudden extraordinary 
threat to justify such an increase. And many of those in this body who 
are pressing for such a huge increase are precisely the same people who 
are out here on the floor day after day, week after week, month after 
month, howling about how we must simply get the deficit under control.
  Again, the very people that want to authorize $13 billion more than 
the Pentagon says it needs are also the very people who are talking 
about how we need to reduce the deficit.
  This amendment is simple. It says that we should not go forward with 
the additional $13 billion that the Pentagon does not want. We should 
put it into deficit reduction. And the cuts should be made by the 
Secretary in a way which protects military readiness and the quality of 
life of our servicemembers.
  Mr. President, while some of my colleagues are talking about deficit 
reduction, at the same time they are larding the defense bill with 
billions in spending for the benefit their local shipyards, weapons 
contractors, or plane manufacturers.
  Mr. President, we ought to be very straightforward with people in 
this country. Is there no sense of limits in this body when it comes to 
wasteful and unnecessary weapons programs? Controlling the deficit is 
important, and I have supported reasonable fair-minded deficit 
reduction proposals totaling hundreds of billions of dollars. But I 
cannot let this debate move forward without pointing out this 
contradiction.
  If we are serious about deficit reduction, what do we do? Do we spend 
$13 billion more than the Pentagon says it needs? I don't think so. For 
the past couple of years we have heard from many of our Republican 
colleagues who have sought to look like they were reducing the Federal 
deficit through various proposals and schemes, most of them involving 
rather nonspecific formulas. Even when they have offered something 
specific, they tend to go after education or Medicare, or medical 
assistance, or programs that protect our air, our lakes, our rivers, 
and so on.
  Mr. President, I cannot understand why it is that the very folks who 
want to cut Pell grants, want to cut Head Start, want to cut programs 
for kids that come from difficult backgrounds, want to cut 
environmental protection programs, want to cut into health care 
programs, are the very people who now want to authorize almost $13 
billion in spending above and beyond what the Pentagon has requested.
  I know some argue that there has been a drop in defense spending. In 
fact, one thing is clear: this bill provides more for defense, in 
dollar terms, than last year. This is in stark contrast to the fact 
that non-defense spending as a whole is frozen or declining 
substantially in many areas. And when you consider the recent re-
estimates of the likely future inflation rate, it's clear that in the 
next few years, we can buy as much for our defense dollar as we had 
planned, but spend almost fifty billion less than we expected we'd have 
to spend last year.
  I see my colleague from North Dakota on the floor. I think I would 
like to defer to him for a while and then come back a little bit later 
to conclude. But before I do, let me say clearly: This is a vote for 
deficit reduction, and it is a vote for priorities that people in the 
country are demanding from us.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague how much time he may need? I would 
like to yield to my colleague from North Dakota 10 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I shall not use the entire 10 minutes. I 
only observe this.
  I have said previously that I admire very much the chairman, Senator 
Thurmond, and Senator Nunn, for the work they have done. But I am 
inclined to feel that we ought to accept the recommendations of the 
Pentagon in terms of what they choose to spend, while we might want to 
move some money around here and there.
  It seems to me that this issue of dealing with deficits and so on is 
not one that is an issue in theory. The issue of deficit reduction is 
not an exercise in theory. It is not an exercise in changing the U.S. 
Constitution. It is not an exercise in idle discussion, or rumination. 
When you have an authorization bill coming to the floor of the Senate 
or when you have an appropriations bill coming to the floor of the 
Senate, it is an exercise in making choices. What is important? What is 
not? What can you afford? What can we not afford?
  It seems to me that the two guiding issues ought to be on virtually 
everything we do--whether it is education, environment, health care, or 
defense--to answer two questions: Do we need this? Can we afford this? 
If the answer is yes on both counts then we ought to proceed.
  The Senator from Minnesota asks the question with his amendment, 
which I intend to vote for, whether we should at this point add nearly 
$13 billion to the request that was made of the Congress for spending 
by the Pentagon. I have no objection to moving some of the funding 
around, if we feel that some priorities requested have a lower value 
than other priorities that were not requested. I have no problem with 
that.
  But the judgment that Congress would exercise in saying we think 
that, even though we talk about reducing the deficit, we should add $13 
billion to this authorization bill for the Department of Defense is a 
curious and I

[[Page S6930]]

think questionable judgment at a time when the Department of Defense 
has not requested that. If the Department of Defense had come to this 
Congress and said here is what we need in order to adequately defend 
this country, and here is why we need it, and had made a compelling 
case in both instances, then I would support it because I think that it 
is a critically important step to assure that we have the necessary 
investments and the money available to defend this country adequately. 
That is not what is at issue here. The Department of Defense has said 
here is what we need; here is what we want. Then the Congress had said, 
``but we would like to authorize some $13 billion above that.''
  As I said, I intend to support the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Minnesota even though, as I have said before, I believe that 
Senator Nunn and Senator Thurmond do an excellent job. And I commend 
them for the work they do. My own preference is that--as we address 
these issues to the Federal deficit that on appropriations and 
authorization bills where we can, when we can, when it is appropriate--
we try in each instance to hold down costs; not boost costs.
  So I feel very strongly that this is an amendment that the Congress 
should look upon favorably and vote for.
  Let me yield my time back to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Bumpers as a 
cosponsor and the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would prefer to use my time to 
respond to some of the arguments that were made on the other side.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am trying to move things forward. I 
know my colleague from South Carolina and my colleague from Georgia 
have a whole agenda of amendments. I thought I would take another 5 
minutes on the amendment, and, if it is OK, I want to reserve a little 
bit of time to respond to the arguments that have been made on the 
other side.
  Mr. President, I wanted to point out that if this amendment goes 
down, I will have another amendment that I will introduce either later 
on today, or tomorrow, with Senator Harkin and others. It will say that 
we ought to take the $1.3 billion in this authorization that is even 
above the budget resolution that we passed, which is only about 10 
percent of the $13 billion over what the Pentagon says it wants, or 
needs, and we ought to put that into restoring funding for Pell grants, 
low-interest Perkins loans, programs for dislocated workers, and summer 
jobs programs, and reform of the job training system. We ought to at 
least put that money into those programs. That to me is really I think 
the priority that people in the country are interested in. I will do 
that later on.
  I want to make it clear that in this whole argument about whether or 
not this additional money is needed, I think the reason the Pentagon 
said we do not need this $13 billion, the reason the President said we 
do not need it, the reason the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
says we do not need it, is because right now we spend along with our 
allies about $510 billion on defense and on our interests 
worldwide. According to estimates prepared by respected arms control 
think tanks and other experts, all of our potential enemies combined 
spend about $140 billion. It is not as if we do not spend a 
considerable amount of resources for defense. It is not as if we do not 
need to be concerned about defense. We do. It is not as if we do not 
need to be concerned--God knows the news of yesterday makes us 
concerned--about the threat of terrorists and arms proliferation. We 
do. We all agree on that.

  But I'm talking about eliminating waste. I have recited studies 
already about just some of the inefficiencies within the Pentagon, some 
of the waste, some of the ways in which we can cut down on expenses 
internally, not to mention the fact that we can give our allies a 
larger share of the burden, so on and so forth. There are a whole lot 
of ways to save money by simply scaling back waste and reassessing our 
spending priorities, Mr. President.
  Let me quote from a New York Times editorial from the other day on 
defense spending. I find this editorial on the mark in its 
characterization of the Republican defense authorization bill.

       The not-so-hidden agenda for many Members of Congress is 
     delivering Federal spending to their districts, and there are 
     few better ways to do that than fattening the Pentagon budget 
     and ordering up expensive new weapons systems. The cold war 
     provided cover for this wasteful practice, but it is now 
     indefensible. With vital domestic programs shrinking to bring 
     the budget into balance, Congress should not be buying 
     military hardware the Nation does not need.

  Mr. President, we need to maintain a strong defense. We can increase 
burdensharing by allies. We can impose cost and accountability controls 
called for by the General Accounting Office. We can eliminate 
unnecessary weapons programs. We can reassess some of the assumptions 
that continue to drive continued high Pentagon spending, like the 
requirement that we be able to fight two major wars at once. But really 
this debate gets back to an even more simple point. We have in the 
Republican authorization bill a request for $13 billion more than the 
Pentagon says it needs.
  I think it is just unconscionable for us to be cutting programs and 
educational opportunities for young people, cutting financial aid 
programs for higher education, cutting into health care programs that 
are so important for senior citizens, cutting into environmental 
protection programs, and say that we are for deficit reduction and then 
turn around and authorize $13 billion more than the Pentagon says it 
needs for our defense.
  The New York Times editorial was right on the mark, and it is for 
this reason that I bring this amendment to the floor with Senator 
Harkin, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Bumpers. Senator Bumpers, probably 
more than any other Senator, has been the most vigilant and the most 
eloquent and the most powerful in pointing out we have to be serious 
about deficit reduction, but we have to do it based upon a standard of 
fairness. If we are going to talk about administrative inefficiencies, 
and we are going to talk about waste, then yes, we should focus on 
waste wherever it is. We should, as some of my colleague has done, 
focus on the Departments of Energy, or of Commerce, or other agencies. 
And we should, and we can, hold all these agencies accountable for 
their own budgets. But what happens when it comes to the Pentagon 
budget? I can think of very few times in my adult life where the 
Congress has proposed spending more money than the Pentagon has asked 
for. I cannot think of a worse time for us to do this. Frankly, it is 
just downright embarrassing. We should take this $13 billion and put it 
into deficit reduction.
  I withhold the remainder of my time to respond to arguments on the 
other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, the 
time to be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request that time in the quorum call be equally divided?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as may be 
required.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND, Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment 
offered by Senators Exon, Bingaman, and

[[Page S6931]]

Kohl. Both the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Armed 
Services determined there is a sound and compelling need to set the 
level of funding for defense at the budget resolution level. The 
amendment, as proposed, reduced defense to the President's level. The 
Committee on Armed Services has received compelling testimony from the 
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the Chiefs of the military services, and the 
secretaries of the military departments that the procurement accounts 
are dangerously underfunded.
  Defense spending, as measured by outlays, continues to decline. From 
fiscal year 1990 to fiscal year 2002, defense spending declines by 34 
percent. However, the same is not true for nondefense or mandatory 
spending programs. Nondefense discretionary programs do not decline, 
but in fact increase by 8.5 percent over the same period. Mandatory 
programs increase at an even greater rate. It is not clear to me why 
defense is the only part of the Government that should take such 
reductions.
  In reality, the Department of Defense continues to get smaller. From 
fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1997, civilian personnel will have 
been reduced 18 percent. However, nondefense Government civilian 
personnel will have been reduced just 5 percent. Furthermore, these 
figures do not take into account the reduction in active duty end 
strengths of 688,000 active duty service members in the last 10 years.
  Mr. President, I continue to hear concerns that the funds added to 
programs in our bill were not requested by the administration, and, 
therefore, should not be added. Let me make clear that we do not agree 
with the President's budget request nor his Future Years' Defense Plan. 
We believe both are inadequate. If we agreed with them, we would not be 
proposing to add funds above the request. It should, therefore, not be 
surprising that we would propose to buy things that are not in the 
President's budget or Future Years' Defense Plan.
  The facts are that the administration's defense budget request barely 
covers the costs for current operations and does not budget adequately 
for modernizing the force. The defense budget requires our men and 
women in uniform to perform their duties without the resources they 
need. I believe this is wrong.
  Deputy Secretary White told the members of the committee that the 
outyear tail associated with this bill is $20 billion. Last week I 
inserted the Congressional Budget Office's cost estimate of the defense 
authorization bill into the Record. Their estimate clearly shows there 
is no outyear tail associated with this bill. We have determined that 
this claim has no basis in fact and is not supported by any sensible 
analysis. It just does not make common sense.
  Some critics have grown fond of saying the committee added funds that 
the senior military leadership neither wants nor needs. The record of 
testimony shows that this criticism is unfounded. The Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shaikashvili, testified:

       I am very concerned that our procurement accounts are not 
     where I think they ought to be * * * [We] must commit 
     ourselves to a sufficient procurement goal, a goal I judge to 
     be approximately $60 billion annually.

  However, this year's procurement request was for $39 billion. Far 
less than what General Shalikashvili considers necessary. The former 
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Owens testified:

       I want to talk . . . about procurement because I believe it 
     is the crisis in the defense budget today.

  The Chief of Staff, Army, General Dennis Reimer testified that:

       The issue still is that we are underfunded in 
     modernization.

  The Chief of Staff, Air Force, General Fogelman testified that:

       I [have watched] the Air Force procurement accounts 
     decrease by some 60 percent . . . we are living off the 
     procurement of the past. It has to stop.

  Mr. President, we have been down this road before, but it seems that 
some of my colleagues have forgotten where it leads. Those who oppose a 
strong defense often attempt to justify their position by reminding us 
that the cold war is over. They conclude that defense spending should 
be lower because we do not face an obvious danger from a threat like 
the Soviet Union. They make a simple argument. This argument is 
appealing because it provides an easy solution to our funding 
problems--but the argument is wrong and dangerous.
  It is true, our Nation no longer faces a cold war danger from the 
Soviet Union, but the world is still a dangerous place. The belief that 
continual reductions to defense are in order is not only flawed, but it 
also ignores reality and the requirement for both present and the 
future force readiness. We ask our men and women in the services to 
respond to crises all over the world. At the same time, the 
administration seeks to continue to reduce defense spending. This is 
not right. Right now, we have United States troops on duty in Bosnia, 
in the skies over Iraq, and on ships at sea near any actual or 
potential trouble spot in the world.
  The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Reimer, testified that,

       Requirements have risen 300% . . . Excessive time away from 
     home is often cited by quality professionals as the reason 
     for their decision to leave the military. It is common to 
     find soldiers that have been away from home . . . for 140, 
     160 or 190 days of this past year.

  The Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Widnall, testified that,

       Since Desert Storm, we have averaged three to four times 
     the level of overseas deployment as we did during the Cold 
     War.

  The administration itself has been telling Congress, year after year, 
that it must increase defense spending. Congress has agreed, but the 
administration has consistently failed to honor its own pledges.
  The defense budget requests have continued to decline. The Department 
of Defense has already been reduced significantly in size and funding, 
but some continue to seek more reductions.
  Mr. President, do we have to learn the same painful lesson over and 
over? As General Reimer testified,

       . . . a lack of modern equipment will cost the lives of 
     brave soldiers.

  I do not know when we will have to commit our Armed Forces. No one 
knows where the next conflict will occur, but I agree with the 
testimony of General Reimer who stated:

       We will sometime place soldiers in harm's way, on short 
     notice and ask them to defeat a determined and dangerous foe. 
     When that happens, we should be satisfied that we have done 
     our best to prepare them for the task at hand.

  Mr. President, I believe that is our solemn obligation, and I 
sincerely hope we will heed the hard lessons we have already learned. I 
thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just say to my 
colleague from South Carolina that part of this authorization is, in 
fact, even above the majority party's budget resolution. Again, I point 
out to my colleagues that if this amendment fails, I will have another 
later on, with Senator Harkin and a good many other Senators, I 
believe--I hope Democrats and Republicans alike--which will take that 
$1.3 billion above even the budget resolution that the majority party 
passed and say that ought to go, not to the Pentagon, that ought to go 
into restoring the funding for Pell grants and low interest loans for 
higher education up to the President's request.
  The second point is, with all due respect to some of my colleagues 
who have a different point of view, I do not think people should be 
fooled about what is going on here. Yesterday we voted for an 
amendment, introduced by Senator Lieberman--I bet it was unanimous, or 
virtually so, I am not sure--which said, ``Let us take a look at our 
force structure and let us look at the whole question of modernization 
of weapons. Let us do a very thorough study and see where we need to 
go.''
  Why in the world, after the U.S. Senate agrees to that unanimously, 
are some of my colleagues in such a hurry with all of these add-ons for 
these weapons systems which represent projects back home? This is pork, 
that is what this is. Let us be crystal clear about it. This is pork. 
Much of these are special add-on projects, or acceleration of spending 
for weapons systems which may or may not even be necessary. The 
Pentagon said it did not need this spending now. And yet we press it on 
them anyway.

[[Page S6932]]

  Again, it seems to me that, given the position that the Defense 
Department has taken, given the position the President has taken, given 
our concern about deficit reduction, what are we doing spending almost 
$13 billion on these sort of special pet projects that go into 
different States that represent, essentially, pork, much of which or 
some of which are just add-on projects? Yesterday we said we ought to 
do a thorough force modernization study. What is the hurry to spend the 
additional $13 billion? Are some worried that an independent panel 
might urge a major reassessment of al this spending?
  I actually could just go over some of these different projects. But 
there are so many of them it would probably take me more than the 
little time I have left. Instead, I will simply urge my colleagues: Let 
us not be in such a hurry to add on $13 billion for pork projects for 
our States for military weapons contracts and programs that we do not 
need. Let us not spend $13 billion more than the Pentagon asked for, 
than the President asked for, than our military leadership asked for, 
not when we say we are serious about deficit reduction.

  Mr. President, let me also make it crystal clear that I think part of 
what is going on here is a definition of defense. I thought it was in 
our national defense to invest in education.
  I think education is a defense against prejudice. I think education 
is a defense against ignorance. I think education is a defense against 
hopelessness. I think education is a defense against poverty. I think 
education is a defense against despair and bitterness and anger and 
cynicism.
  We have a majority party--not everyone but unfortunately the vast 
majority of the majority party--wants to cut education programs. They 
say they are for deficit reduction and now want to authorize $13 
billion more than the Pentagon says it needs.
  This is a vote for deficit reduction. This is a vote that says, take 
almost $13 billion and put it into deficit reduction; do not authorize 
$13 billion of spending more than the Pentagon says it needs for our 
national defense. This is a reasonable proposition, and I hope it will 
receive strong support.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  While waiting, I ask unanimous consent to add on Senator Feingold as 
an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if there will be no more response, it 
is fine to go to a vote. I do not know what my colleague would like to 
do. I will defer to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have several amendments we are going 
to take up. I suggest we complete debate on this amendment and set it 
aside and stack the votes, if that is agreeable with the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from South Carolina, it 
certainly is agreeable. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. THURMOND. I believe Senator Nunn wants to speak against this 
amendment, so I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President, and ask 
that the time not be charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. I now yield the able Senator from Georgia such time as 
he may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, please notify me in 6 minutes so I know how 
much time I consume.
  I rise in opposition to the Wellstone amendment which reduces defense 
funding authorized in this bill by $13 billion. For several years I 
have been expressing my concern that the actual and projected declining 
defense budgets are not sufficient from force standpoints, one, to 
maintain the current readiness of our military forces, two, to provide 
the standard of living that military personnel and their families 
expect and deserve, three, supporting the force structure necessary to 
carry out the full range of missions that we expect our military forces 
to be able to perform, and, fourth, to provide for the modernization 
that is the key to the future capability and future readiness of these 
forces.
  Mr. President, modernization is our greatest deficiency. We are in 
effect living off of the capital of our previous investment in terms of 
the modernization account. Mr. President, while we all recognize you 
can live off your previous investments for awhile, you cannot do it 
forever. We cannot do it in our personal lives; and we cannot do it in 
our Government; and it certainly cannot be done in our defense budget.
  National defense is a continuing obligation of our Government under 
the Constitution, and the tools we need to do the job simply do not 
last forever. They have to be replaced. They have to be updated. They 
have to be modernized. We have to invest in new capital. In this age of 
rapidly declining technology, our previous investments can become 
obsolete even before they wear out physically.
  The men and women in the military continue to perform superbly every 
time they are called on. And we are calling on them all the time all 
over the world. We owe it to them to give them the support they need to 
do their job. We also have to ensure that the men and women who will be 
called on in 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years, will have the same 
advantages vis-a-vis our potential opponents that our military forces 
have today, including our technological superiority. I do not think we 
can expect our men and women who volunteer to defend our country to do 
so with obsolete technology.
  During the long defense drawdown, I think military services have done 
a remarkable job reducing our force in a way that was fair as far as 
possible to the men and women in uniform as well as the civilian 
employees of the Department of Defense and the defense industry.
  We have gone to great lengths with special incentives to ensure we 
did not break the force in terms of morale during the drawdown. With 
some limited exceptions, we have also kept the readiness high while 
accomplishing this drawdown. Readiness overall is in good shape today. 
But the problem is, we have been borrowing from the future to 
accomplish these other desirable goals: Protecting readiness, reducing 
the force structure gradually enough to keep the quality up, giving 
generous early retirement benefits to make sure that we treat our 
forces fairly, and keeping the turmoil in the force drawdown to a 
manageable level.
  I believe the defense spending levels included in the fiscal year 
1997 budget resolution are about right. We do know we are going to need 
to bring our level down by a little over $1.7 billion to get it in 
compliance with the budget resolution. It is my view that we should do 
that on the floor. And we should make it clear, before it goes to 
conference, that we are in full compliance with the budget resolution. 
The bill is now slightly over. I believe we will have to cut about $1.7 
billion from this bill now before us in order to get it in compliance 
with the budget resolution, which is the guideline that this committee 
is bound to live by.

  While the 1997 defense topline is an increase from the President's 
budget, it still is below last year's budget level in defense in real 
dollar terms. So when people talk about the increase in the defense 
budget in the budget resolution and in this bill, they are really 
talking about an increase relative to the President's budget, they are 
not talking about an increase compared to last year. I hope people 
understand that. Defense, even if the Wellstone amendment is defeated, 
will still be coming down in real dollar terms. I hope we will start 
moving towards stabilizing the defense budget by the end of this decade 
even though it will be at a much lower level than we had at the start 
of the decade.
  While I believe that the funding levels requested for readiness, 
military pay raises, and quality of life initiatives in the President's 
budget are about right, I think there are clearly insufficient funds 
going into modernizing our force. Modernization, for the most part, is 
delayed into the outyears under the current future years defense 
program. We all know from experience how illusory these projections 
become 4 years or 5 years down the road.

[[Page S6933]]

  The fiscal squeeze on the budget is already intense. As we seek to 
balance the budget, we should not make it worse by trying to enact tax 
cuts at the same time, which is what the overall budget resolution 
calls for. I do not agree with that. I think that is not the right way 
to go, but this is not the time for that debate. I hope, in the final 
analysis, we will understand that if we really want a balanced budget, 
we need to go ahead and get that job done and declare the dividend 
later, rather than declaring a dividend and having a celebration with a 
tax cut before we have even gotten the job done and before the U.S. 
Treasury is in decent shape. Anyway, that is another story.
  While outyear projections show funds for defense modernization 
increasing, I have great concern on that score because I do not think 
that is in the cards in light of the effort to get the budget balanced 
in 2002, a goal that I completely agree with. I think we need to 
remember, first of all, the funding differences between the 
administration and the budget before us are not that great. The budget 
resolution is 1 percent higher over the next 6 years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 6 minutes.
  Mr. NUNN. If the Senator will give me 2 or 3 more minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield the Senator such time as he may require.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, we need to understand that while the defense spending 
levels in the budget resolution are higher than the President's budget 
this year, they are actually lower than the Clinton administration's 
defense plan in terms of budget authority starting in the year 2001. In 
other words, the administration is lower than the Congress this year, 
but higher in the outyears.
  I think the administration's outyear defense plan for 2001 and 2002 
is about what we are going to need in terms of the defense budget, but 
I think the budget resolution is probably more realistic in terms of 
what we can afford for defense if we really are going to drive for a 
balanced budget in 2002.
  However, I feel that both the President's balanced budget plan and 
the Republican budget resolution, which is also aimed at balancing the 
budget, both of them assume unrealistic cuts in the outyears in overall 
discretionary spending, which includes defense, but is not limited to 
defense. That is betting on the future, and I think is an illusion. We 
are not going to make those size cuts in the outyears. That means under 
neither the budget resolution, nor the administration's proposal, are 
we likely to make the kind of cuts required to get the budget balanced 
in 2002.
  That is why I supported the Chafee-Breaux alternative, which in my 
view, represented a much more realistic picture of what is achievable, 
sustainable and sensible in terms of both defense and nondefense 
spending.
  In my view, Mr. President, we need to increase the defense topline 
now, to restore the balance to our defense program. We also need to 
extend the firewalls that the Senator from New Mexico has reinstated 
for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 in the budget resolution to 
protect any defense increases we are able to achieve and to provide 
some stability in the defense budget.
  Firewalls do not mean the defense budget cannot be cut. It can be. It 
does mean it will not be shifted to other nondefense purposes.
  We have been reducing the defense budget for a long time. The current 
builddown started during President Reagan's second term, significantly 
before the fall of the Berlin Wall. It continued and was accelerated 
through the Bush administration and the Clinton administration. 
However, Mr. President, the time has come to stabilize the defense 
budget as much as possible. The defense budget has already made a major 
contribution to deficit reduction, more so than any other part of the 
budget.
  I am often intrigued by the arguments made about how many Federal 
employees we have cut out in the last several years. Mr. President, if 
you look at the numbers--I do not have the exact numbers in my mind--
something like 70 percent of all the Federal employees that have been 
cut from the payroll have been cut from the Department of Defense. 
Defense is doing its part, has done its part. We need to begin to level 
it off. Even if we defeat this amendment, there would still be a 
decrease in the defense budget in real-dollar terms from last year.
  Mr. President, modernization funding should be increased. The future 
readiness and future capability of the Defense Department requires 
modernization and it requires research and development. Those are the 
programs that have been cut most deeply during the defense drawdown.
  The pressure to achieve and maintain a balanced budget will make it 
very difficult to increase the defense budget above current levels--yet 
current levels are still artificially low as we work back towards a 
normal level of procurement and a normal level of infrastructure 
investment.
  Because we were reducing the size of the force and were able to keep 
the most modern equipment as we downsized, a temporary decline in 
procurement was appropriate. But we are now reaching the point where we 
have to get our modernization budget back up to a long-term level that 
will sustain our forces for the future. We have to start increasing the 
procurement budget to prevent the average age of our weapons technology 
from reaching unacceptable levels. At the same time, because the 
personnel drawdown is nearly complete, we are not going to be able to 
continue to reduce that part of our defense budget. It is unrealistic 
to expect this long period of declining defense budgets to continue.
  Similarly, during the BRAC era we underinvested in facilities 
modernization because nobody wanted to waste money modernizing 
facilities we might be about to shut down. But now that we have made 
those decisions and the BRAC process is over we are going to have to 
put more money in modernizing and maintaining the facilities we have 
left.
  So our children will be to have a budget that is slightly larger than 
the ones now planned. If we are going to balance the budget, it is 
unrealistic to plan for more than a slight increase. The budget 
resolution only increases the defense budget by about 1 percent over 
the levels in the administration's request--in order to have adequate 
funds for capital investments in weapons and facilities.
  This is why I oppose amendments which would reduce the defense 
topline number below the levels agreed to in the budget resolution. The 
funds added to the administration request by the committee have gone 
almost entirely to modernization--in other words, they have been 
invested in the future. I think my colleagues will find that the funds 
the Armed Services Committee added to the modernization accounts have 
gone mostly, not completely, to programs the service chiefs have 
requested, and most of these were programs the administration was 
already planning to do.
  So, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Wellstone amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from South Carolina 
if I can reclaim my 3 minutes for a brief response to the Senator from 
Georgia.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I have no objection.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I want to make sure I understand. You do intend to 
propose an amendment to bring the authorization down to the budget 
resolution, the $1.7 billion, is that correct?
  Mr. THURMOND. Yes, we do.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask the Senator from Georgia, did I hear correctly 
that you intend to propose an amendment to bring the authorization down 
to $1.7 billion, down to the budget resolution?
  Mr. NUNN. Yes, that is my belief of what we should do. I am not 
absolutely certain that will be done yet. I hope that would be done.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If you do that, please include me as a cosponsor.
  Mr. NUNN. I say to the Senator, is he assuming his amendment may not 
pass. If it is adopted, I will not be proposing that $1.7 billion.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I think it will be very close, but it may not pass.
  Mr. NUNN. I will include the Senator on that if we are so fortunate 
as to defeat the Wellstone amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  I point out to the Senator from Georgia the wording of the amendment 
is important, because I listened to what he said about readiness and 
quality of life.

[[Page S6934]]

  On the allocation of reductions, the amendment reads, ``The Secretary 
of Defense shall allocate reductions in authorizations of 
appropriations that are necessary as the result of the application of 
the limitation set forth in subsection (a) so as to not jeopardize the 
military readiness of the Armed Forces or the quality of life of Armed 
Forces personnel,'' my assumption being that clearly the Pentagon and 
Defense Department in their budget request have already taken this into 
account.
  I wanted to be clear about the wording of this.
  Mr. NUNN. I understand. I know what the Senator was doing. I will 
respond briefly.
  There is the problem, though, that the reduction here will have to 
come out of modernization. This is a procurement account, which is 
already where the problem is.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Finally, Mr. President, in response to that, I was 
pointing out before the Senator came to the floor, we voted 100 to 0 
for what I think is an important study of force structure and 
modernization yesterday, but my concern is that what we have here is an 
acceleration of weapons programs that may not be necessary, may be 
obsolete, and we ought to go forward with that study.
  I finish up quoting from Senator McCain's view on the Armed Services 
Committee. His comments:

       Again, I believe this is overall a very good defense bill, 
     and I voted in favor of reporting the bill to the Senate. 
     However, I feel that the additional $13 billion included in 
     this bill may not survive the congressional budget review 
     process this year. In the event that this bill must be 
     reduced by $3 billion or $4 billion or more, I hope my 
     colleagues will look carefully at these pork-barrel add-ons. 
     We must protect the high-priority military programs which 
     contribute to the future readiness of our Armed Forces. If 
     this bill must be reduced, we should cut out the pork first.

  That is what this amendment is about. I really believe in cutting out 
this pork and doing the deficit reduction, going after the $13 billion 
above and beyond what the Pentagon requested, the President requested, 
the military leadership requested.
  I yield back the rest of my time.

                          ____________________