[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7156-S7169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1745, the 
     Department of Defense Authorization bill:
         Trent Lott, Phil. Gramm, Larry E. Craig, Conrad Burns, 
           Arlen Specter, Dan Coats, Connie Mack, Chuck Grassley, 
           Craig Thomas, Bill Cohen, Jon Kyl, Strom Thurmond, Rick 
           Santorum, C.S. Bond, Bob Smith, Judd Gregg.

  Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, this cloture vote, if 
necessary, would occur on Saturday. It is my sincere hope the Senate 
will have taken this bill to third reading long before Saturday, 
however we may not be able to get it done. But if we get this 
unanimous-consent agreement worked out that we are working on, and I 
think we are getting close, if we can get the list of amendments agreed 
to in the morning, then we can move them forward and I think we can get 
to third reading tomorrow.
  But as for now, that is the last vote of tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MACK. 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. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4372

   (Purpose: To require a study of ship self-defense options for the 
                    ``Cyclone'' class patrol craft)

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senators Warner and Smith, 
I offer an amendment that would require a study of ship self-defense 
options for the ``Cyclone'' class patrol craft. 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 Arizona (Mr. McCain), for Mr. Warner, for 
     himself, and Mr. Smith, proposes an amendment numbered 4372.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 223. CYCLONE CLASS CRAFT SELF-DEFENSE.

       (a) Study Required.--Not later than March 31, 1997, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall--
       (1) carry out a study of vessel self-defense options for 
     the Cyclone class patrol craft; and
       (2) submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate 
     and the Committee on National Security of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the results of the study.
       (b) SOCOM Involvement.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
     study through the Commander of the Special Operations 
     Command.
       (c) Specific System To Be Evaluated.--The study under 
     subsection (a) shall include an evaluation of the BARAK ship 
     self-defense missile system.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this amendment has been cleared on this 
side. We have no objection to it.
  Mr. McCAIN. I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4372) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, could I interrupt for just a moment to 
ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be extended to 
Max H. Della Pia in the Air Force Reserve, a Fellow in my office, 
during the pendency of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4373

  (Purpose: To place a condition on authority of the Secretary of the 
Navy to dispose of certain tugboats to the Northeast Wisconsin Railroad 
                       Transportation Commission)

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Glenn and Senator 
Abraham, I offer an amendment that would place a condition on the 
authority of the Secretary of the Navy to transfer tugboats to the 
Northeast Wisconsin Railroad Transportation Commission.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for Mr. Glenn, for 
     himself, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4373.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In section 1022(a), strike out ``. Such transfers'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``, if the Secretary determines that 
     the tugboats are not needed for transfer, donation, or other 
     disposal under title II of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 481 et seq.). 
     A transfer made under the preceding sentence''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this amendment would reinstate the normal 
GSA review of the disposal.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4373) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4374

  (Purpose: To clarify the definition of the term ``national security 
 system'' for purposes of the Information Technology Management Reform 
                              Act of 1996)

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Cohen, I offer an

[[Page S7157]]

amendment which would clarify the definition of ``national security 
systems'' under the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 
1996.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I urge that the Senate adopt this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), for Mr. Cohen, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4374.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle F of title X add the following:

     SEC. 1072. CLARIFICATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEMS TO 
                   WHICH THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT 
                   REFORM ACT OF 1996 APPLIES.

       Section 5142(b) of the Information Technology Management 
     Reform Act of 1996 (division E of Public Law 104-106; 110 
     Stat. 689; 40 U.S.C. 1452(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``(b) Limitation.--'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``(b) Limitations.--(1)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section 
     or any other provision of law, for the purposes of this 
     subtitle, a system that, in function, operation, or use, 
     involves the storage, processing, or forwarding of classified 
     information and is protected at all times by procedures 
     established for the handling of classified information shall 
     be considered as a national security system under the 
     definition in subsection (a) only if the function, operation, 
     or use of the system--
       ``(A) involves activities described in paragraph (1), (2), 
     or (3) of subsection (a);
       ``(B) involves equipment described in paragraph (4) of 
     subsection (a); or
       ``(C) is critical to an objective described in paragraph 
     (5) of subsection (a) and is not excluded by paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection.''.

  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, the amendment I am offering today is 
designed to maintain the integrity of the national security systems 
definition of the Information Technology Management Reform Act [ITMRA] 
of 1996. This act lays the foundation for real information management 
reform not only at the Department of Defense but at all government 
agencies.
  The need for this amendment is to make clear that the Senate does not 
wish to see any significant policy changes to the ITMRA until there has 
been some time to assess progress in the implementation of the act. The 
national security systems language in the ITMRA represents a delicate 
compromise between Congress, DOD, and the intelligence community. But, 
even before the law becomes effective the House was asked to include a 
significant change to the ITMRA on the House-passed version of the DOD 
authorization bill. The House provision undermines the compromise 
reached last year and would have the effect of limiting oversight for a 
new class of information systems. The administration in its Statement 
of Administrative Policy opposes the House-passed provision, and I look 
forward to the administration's continued support for maintaining the 
integrity of the ITMRA in conference.
  The ITMRA was based on compromise. Like most compromises, it probably 
will not satisfy everyone with an interest in information management 
issues. The ITMRA is a significant step in establishing the oversight 
criteria by which all information systems including national security 
systems will be judged. This criteria will be used by OMB, agency 
heads, the inspectors-general, GAO, and the Congress in holding agency 
officials accountable for obtaining a positive return for the taxpayers 
on the more than $50 billion annual Government investment in 
information systems. It is important to know whether we are getting our 
money's worth on information technology investments including, for 
example, the systems that process classified imagery, the software that 
guides a precision-guided munition to its target, the computers that 
control our Nation's air traffic control system, and the long distance 
phone bill for Federal employees in Portland, ME.
  The ITMRA would accomplish meaningful reform, in part, by emphasizing 
up-front capital planning and the establishment of clear performance 
goals and investment criteria designed to improve agency operations. 
Once the up-front planning is complete and the performance goals are 
established, the procurement reforms that Congress has enacted in the 
last 2 years would make it simpler and faster for agencies to purchase 
information technology.
  This management criteria applies to all systems in the Government 
including national security systems. Yet we have not emerged from the 
old Brooks Act paradigm. During the negotiations over the ITMRA, I 
reluctantly agreed to maintain the status quo and keep the old Brook 
Act national security systems definition and exemptions. But one must 
really ask what these systems are really exempted from? It is not from 
OMB oversight as OMB already has that authority in the budget process. 
This authority was reaffirmed in the ITMRA as Congress explicitly 
directed the Director of OMB to enforce accountability for sound 
information resources management through the budget process for all 
information technology including national security systems.

  The Brooks Act exemptions were originally passed to exclude some DOD 
and intelligence systems for the procurement authority of the 
Administrator of the General Services Administration. It was never 
intended to exempt DOD and the CIA from implementing sound management 
practices. ITMRA frees all agencies from GSA oversight in exchange for 
adhering to the sound business-tested methods of capital planning, 
establishing investment controls, measuring performance, benchmarking, 
and enforcing accountability. Thus, there was never any compelling 
reason for keeping the Brooks Act exemption language as the ITMRA 
eliminated the original reason for the exemption.
  The Congress did believe, however, that national security systems 
should be given some greater flexibility in implementing the ITMRA and 
agreed to keep a national security systems definition and 
classification. Systems classified as national security systems are 
exempt from select portions of the act. It perhaps can be argued that 
with recent problems with classified financial systems and information 
management at the National Reconnaissance Office, the serious cost 
overruns derived from poor software management in many major weapons 
systems, and the lack of interoperability among our command, control, 
communications systems that the ITMRA national security systems 
exemption are too broad. This is probably the case, and I considered 
offering an amendment to eliminate the national security systems 
exemption.
  I have, however, decided not to pursue that amendment in order to see 
how the current system will work in practice. I will have to leave it 
to my successors to ascertain how well national security systems are 
conforming to the ITMRA and whether a more restricted exemption is 
necessary. In the coming years we will witness whether DOD is able to 
seize the opportunities generated from procurement and management 
reforms to provide cost-effective intelligence and information systems 
that effectively support our service men and women and maintain our 
technological advantage on the battlefield. I fear, however, if the 
culture does not change at DOD and the Pentagon continues to hide 
behind legalistic and metaphysical barriers to outside oversight, we 
will witness the continued development of shoddy systems that do not 
take advantage of the dynamic commercial marketplace and that will in 
time erode our national security in the information age.
  Another of the more contentious issues in developing the ITMRA was 
how to treat the oversight of security standards in the Government. 
Recent hearings of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reveal 
that information security is still a serious problem that needs to be 
addressed. In ITMRA, Congress attempted to maintain the status quo 
regarding the division of responsibilities over information security 
standards and oversight. Based on recent events, I have now come to the 
conclusion that the agencies responsible for information security are 
more concerned with turf battles and bureaucratic infighting than they 
are about securing vital Government information. I am convinced that 
Congress needs to readdress the Computer Security Act and its 
implementation, but I am also convinced that this bill is not the 
vehicle to address the issue.

[[Page S7158]]

  In conclusion, the amendment I propose clarifies any ambiguity 
regarding the definition of national security systems, reaffirms the 
Senate's commitment to maintaining the application of the ITMRA, and 
directly counters the House provision. Unlike the amendment to the 
House bill, this amendment does not change the status quo with regard 
to information systems security and maintains the comprehensive 
applicability of ITMRA to classified systems that do not meet the 
national security systems definition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4374) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4375

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Army to type classify the 
                Electro Optic Augmentation [EOA] system)

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senators Heflin and Shelby, 
I offer an amendment which I believe is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin), for Mr. Heflin, for 
     himself and Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 4375.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle B of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 113. TYPE CLASSIFICATION OF ELECTRO OPTIC AUGMENTATION 
                   (EOA) SYSTEM.

       (a) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Army shall type 
     classify the Electro Optic Augmentation (EOA) system.
       (b) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     for the Army by this division, $100,000 shall be made 
     available to the Armored Systems Modernization Program 
     manager for the type classification required by subsection 
     (a).

  Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment that would 
allow the Army to type classify the electro optic augmentation system. 
The Army spent millions of dollars to develop this hardware but, for 
the lack of less than $100,000, was unable to certify the final 
product.
  I have been informed that elements of the Army wish to purchase this 
equipment, but cannot due to the lack of this final certification. As 
the use of the EOA will save the Army millions of maintenance dollars 
annually, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this amendment would direct the Army to 
conduct the necessary administrative actions to allow the Army to buy a 
system to test some of its electro-optic devices on its tanks and other 
armored vehicles.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4375) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4376

   (Purpose: To amend section 218 to require that the report on F-22 
aircraft program costs include a comparison with an earlier estimate of 
                                 costs)

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Grassley, I offer 
an amendment which requires a report on the F-22 aircraft program cost, 
including a comparison with an earlier estimate of costs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Grassley, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4376.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 218(a) add the following: ``The 
     report shall include--
       ``(1) a comparison of--
       ``(A) the results of the review, with
       ``(B) the results of the last independent estimate of 
     production costs of the program that was prepared by the Cost 
     Analysis Improvement Group in July 1991; and
       ``(2) a description of any major changes in programmatic 
     assumptions that have occurred since the estimate referred to 
     in paragraph (1)(B) was made, including any major change in 
     assumptions regarding the program schedule, the quantity of 
     aircraft to be developed and acquired, and the annual rates 
     of production, together with an assessment of the effects of 
     such changes on the program.''.


              independent cost estimate for f-22 aircraft

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to express strong support 
for section 219 of the bill. This is an excellent provision. It just 
needs some fine tuning.
  Section 218 calls for an independent cost estimate of the Air Force 
F-22 Fighter Program by March 30, 1997. The independent estimate is to 
be prepared by the Cost Analysis Improvement Group [CAIG]. The last 
CAIG report on the F-22 was done in 1991--5 years ago.
  The CAIG has two missions: first, be a cost watchdog at the Pentagon; 
and second, develop independent cost estimates for major weapons 
systems. The CAIG's charter is embodied in a small piece of 
legislation--section 2434 of title 10 of the U.S. Code--developed, in 
part, by Senator Nunn.
  Having honest and accurate cost estimates is the key to making smart 
decisions. Unfortunately, the CAIG's track record is dismal. 
Historically, it has underestimated actual costs by 25, 50, 75 or even 
100 percent or more.
  In a nutshell, this is the problem: The CAIG uses the notorious 
``pass-through'' method of cost estimating. The CAIG relies on the 
estimates prepared by the contractors and the program offices. The CAIG 
massages their numbers. The CAIG adds 5 or 10 percent to the price 
tag--for safe measure. That's the CAIG's cover your fanny maneuver. 
Then the CAIG ``Chair,'' Mr. David McNicol, wages his magic wand and 
declares his estimates ``independent.''
  The CAIG's highly educated staff acts like a high-priced conveyer 
belt for shoddy estimates. Keep in mind that the program offices and 
contractors like to low ball it. They want to get their program 
started--get the camel's nose under the tent, so to speak. Once they 
get the program rolling, then they gradually ratchet up the cost. 
That's dishonest.
  This is one reason why we have the $150 billion plans/reality 
mismatch at the Pentagon.
  This is not the kind of cost-estimating process envisioned in section 
2434 of the law. The CAIG should develop its own estimate from the 
bottom up.
  The original F-22 cost estimate is an excellent case in point. When 
the Defense Acquisition Board or DAB met in June and July 1991 to 
consider whether to move the F-22 into full-scale development, the CAIG 
presented a cost estimate. But it wasn't independent.
  The CAIG presented a report to the DAB citing two estimates: the 
Program Office estimate of $110.2 billion; and the Air force estimate 
of $114 billion. This was for 750 aircraft in FY 1990 dollars. There 
was no independent CAIG estimate.
  The CAIG's sole input consisted of a bunch of gross generalizations 
and lame caveats. For example, it warned of a ``high probability'' that 
development or EMD costs would exceed the $12.7 billion cited in the 
Air Force estimate because there was no allowance for ``unknown 
unknowns.''
  How would the CAIG quantify an unknown unknown if it had one? And 
what about ``known knowns''?
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the June 1991 
CAIG report on the F-22 report.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     Office of the


                                         Secretary of Defense,

                                    Washington, DC. June 21, 1991.

       Memorandum to the Chairman, Conventional Systems Committee

     Subject: Initial CAIG Report on the Advanced Tactical Fighter 
         (ATF).

       This memorandum provides a preliminary statement of the 
     main conclusions of our review of the Air Force program 
     office and independent estimates of the costs of the ATF 
     program.
       Top lines of the program office estimate (POE) and the Air 
     Force's Independent Cost Analysis (ICA) are shown below.

    ATF COST ESTIMATES--MILESTONE II [750 Aircraft; fiscal year 1990;   
                          dollars in millions]                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Air            
                                             Program    Force     Delta 
                                             Office      ICA       (in  
                                            estimate  estimate  percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM/VAL...................................     3,808     3,847     +1.0 

[[Page S7159]]

                                                                        
EMD.......................................    11,620    12,730     +9.6 
Production................................  \1\ 48,8                    
                                                  45    49,621     +1.6 
O&S.......................................    45,900    47,800     +4.1 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The POE production cost estimate for 648 F-22s is $43.5B (FY90$).   


       There are two major issues concerning the EMD estimate 
     which we believe need to be addressed.
       First, the program is not fully funded in the President's 
     Budget. Our assessment of EMD costs is close to the ICA, and 
     we recommend that the EMD program be funded to that level. 
     The ICA is about $2.7B higher than the ATF EMD funding in the 
     FY 1992 Amended President's Budget (APB). The following 
     adjustments to ATF RDT&E in the APB are needed through FY97 
     to fund the Air Force ICA estimate: +62M FY91; -$179M FY92; 
     +$22M FY93; +159M FY94; +430M FY93; +$892M FY96; and +$978M 
     FY97.
       Second, we believe that there is a high probability that 
     the EMD program will require more than the $12.7B ICA 
     estimate before EMD is completed. We do not say this out of 
     any belief that the costing methods used by the Air Force are 
     inappropriate, or that the Air Force estimate omits major 
     elements of content that can be specifically identified at 
     this time, neither of which is the case. Our point is simply 
     that the EMD cost estimate for this tremendously complex and 
     challenging airframe, engine, and avionics development 
     program contains no specific provisions for ``unknown 
     unknowns.''
       In discussions of this topic with us, Air Force 
     representatives have described their extensive risk reduction 
     program which has:
       Proved key aspects of the technology;
       Achieved an exceptionally well established set of 
     regulations;
       Provided management tools giving unparalled insight into 
     the evolution of the development program.
       The force of these points, which we grant, is that the 
     risks are not so large as they seem looking only at the scope 
     of the program.
       The Air Force also has argued that the engineering change 
     order (ECO), award fee, and avionics software cost estimates 
     constitute or, in the case of the software, include 
     allowances for ``unknown unknowns.'' It is also relevant that 
     the Air Force EMD estimate is above the contractor BAFO 
     numbers. Some of the award fee funds surely will be used to 
     reward the contractor, however, and a fair portion of the ECO 
     allowance is likely to be consumed fixing normal 
     developmental problems. Thus, the potential amount available 
     for ``unknown unknowns'' is far smaller than the Air Force 
     claims. Moreover, even if the full amount of the ECO and 
     award fee lines, and the relevant part of the avionics 
     software line could be counted, judged by historical 
     experience that would not be a large enough allowance for 
     ``unknown unknowns'' to provide reasonable confidence that 
     the budget would not be exceeded before the end of the ATF 
     EMD program.
       Our view, in short, is that the ATF is an extremely complex 
     and challenging, and in those respects risky, program, while 
     the Air Force cost estimate contains at most very modest 
     allowances for that risk.
       The scale of the ATF program is suggested by the attached 
     table. It appears to be by the largest tactical aircraft 
     program the Department has ever undertaken.
       Neither we nor the Air Force would claim that it is 
     possible to identify perfectly the entire content of an EMD 
     effort so large and complex as that of the ATF. Providing an 
     allowance for the risk of the EMO program, then, would 
     require funding for program content that has not been 
     specifically identified. We recognize that some would argue 
     that funding reserves for risk is bad practice, particularly 
     for cost plus contracts. (And the ATF is the first large 
     development program in nearly a decade for which a cost-plus 
     contract will be used.) It seems clear, however, that the 
     Department must either accept the Air Force estimate and be 
     prepared to add funding later, or add funds now for yet-to-
     be-identified content changes.
       The CAIG's crosscheck of the production estimate is about 
     10% higher than the POE and the ICA estimate, due to 
     differences on composite manufacturing hours and on ratios of 
     ancillary costs to manufacturing hours for composites.
       We will provide a full CAIG report later.

                                             David L. McNicol,

                                           Chairman, Cost Analysis
                                                Improvement Group.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, because of persistent complaints about 
its shoddy work on the F-22, the CAIG was forced back to the drawing 
board. In late July 1991--after the second DAB review, the CAIG 
produced an independent cost estimate of the F-22. This was an 80-page 
report with detailed supporting documentation. Very few people have 
actually seen it. It never went to the DAB.
  Madam President, I don't have a copy of it, but I'm told its buried 
in a file someplace in the Pentagon. The Committee should see it.
  The author of the 1991 CAIG reports on the F-22, Mr. David J. 
Gallagher, is still a member of the CAIG. He knows where the 80-page 
report is hidden. He knows where the F-22's skeletons are buried.
  I would like to urge the Committee to give the CAIG strict guidance 
about using the July 1991 report as a reference or starting point for 
the new study. Otherwise, the Pentagon bureaucrats will invent some 
kind of rubber baseline. A rubber baseline would be a neat device for 
shielding the CAIG from accountability.
  We need to make sure that the CAIG uses the proper and logical point 
of comparison for the F-22 cost estimate ordered by the Committee in 
section 218. If we don't insist on it, DOD will establish a phony 
baseline estimate. They will create a rubber baseline to hide F-22 cost 
growth.
  I am sure DOD has already changed the F-22 baseline, so we can't 
follow the audit trail back to the 1991 estimate. The F-22 audit trail 
is probably already covered up.
  The CAIG should be held accountable for the July 1991 F-22 cost 
estimate. How good was that estimate? Where are we today relative to 
that estimate? Have the major programmatic assumptions used in the July 
1991 report changed? If so, how do these changes affect the total cost 
of the program?
  I have developed a very minor, noncontroversial amendment. My 
amendment merely directs the CAIG to use the July 1991 report as the 
point of comparison for F-22 cost estimate ordered by the Committee. In 
addition, actual manufacturing cost data from the first development 
aircraft is becoming available. To the maximum extent possible, the 
CAIG should use that data in preparing its estimate of F-22 production 
costs.
  The intent of my amendment is simple: Get the CAIG to do a good job 
this time. The F-22 is one of DOD's biggest programs, and it needs 
scrutiny and disciplined analysis. The last time around the CAIG hid in 
the weeds. I don't want to see that happen again.
  The Committee staff has reviewed my amendment and indicated that it 
is acceptable.
  Madam President, I would like to thank the Committee Chairman, 
Senator Thurmond, and the ranking minority member, Senator Nunn, for 
their leadership and support on this issue. I would also like to thank 
the responsible staff person, Mr. Steve Madey, for his advice and 
assistance.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I believe this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. It has been cleared.
  Mr. McCAIN. I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4376) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4377

 (Purpose: To provide funding for research and development relating to 
                        desalting technologies)

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senators Simon, Conrad, and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), Mr. Simon, for 
     himself, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4377.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 243. DESALTING TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Access to scarce fresh water is likely to be a cause of 
     future military conflicts in the Middle East and has a direct 
     impact on stability and security in the region.
       (2) The Middle East is an area of vital and strategic 
     importance to the United States.
       (3) The United States has played a military role in the 
     Middle East, most recently in the Persian Gulf War, and may 
     likely be called upon again to deter aggression in the 
     region.
       (4) United States troops have used desalting technologies 
     to guarantee the availability of fresh water in past 
     deployments in the Middle East.
       (5) Adequate, efficient, and cheap access to high-quality 
     fresh water will be vital to maintaining their readiness and 
     sustainability of United States troops, and those of our 
     allies.

[[Page S7160]]

       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that, 
     as improved access to fresh water will be an important factor 
     in helping prevent future conflicts in the Middle East, the 
     United States should, in cooperation with its allies, promote 
     and invest in technologies to reduce the costs of converting 
     saline water into fresh water.
       (c) Funding for Research and Development.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated by this title, the Secretary 
     shall place greater emphasis on making funds available for 
     research and development into efficient and economical 
     processes and methods for converting saline water into fresh 
     water.

  Mr. LEVIN. This amendment would encourage the Secretary of the Army 
to place greater emphasis on making funds available for research and 
development and to have efficient and economical processes and methods 
for converting saline water into fresh water.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for 
an amendment to be offered by Senator Simon to S. 1745, the Department 
of Defense fiscal year 1997 authorization bill. This amendment directs 
the Secretary to place greater emphasis on making funds available for 
research and development into efficient and economical processes and 
methods for converting saline water into fresh water.
  Madam President, access to scarce fresh water is important both 
nationally and internationally. As my colleague from Illinois has often 
pointed out, improved access to fresh water could be an important 
factor in the prevention of future conflicts in the Middle East. 
Further, the benefits derived from research into economical methods of 
desalination have applications in the United States and throughout the 
world. Converting the brackish water found in many watersheds into 
water that could be utilized for potable, agricultural, or industrial 
purposes would enhance our world's beleaguered water supply and would 
assist in the development of long-term water management plans.
  It is my hope the Secretary will direct the funding authorized for 
research and development by this amendment toward several desalination 
technologies in an attempt to find a versatile, economical, and 
effective method for converting saline water to fresh water. For 
example, the Energy and Environmental Research Center [EERC], located 
at the University of North Dakota, has been conducting research into 
the freeze-thaw evaporation method of separating salts and other 
contaminants from water. In fact, EERC successfully demonstrated this 
technology on oil production water in New Mexico and is attempting to 
demonstrate the effectiveness of this technology on a larger scale in a 
brackish watershed in North Dakota.
  Technologies that appear to hold much promise for converting brackish 
water into water that can be utilized for potable and other purposes, 
such as freeze/thaw evaporation, merit further research and 
development. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, the Department of Defense currently 
conducts desalting research at the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive RD&E 
Center in Warren, MI. I have introduced an amendment to authorize 
additional funding for this research.
  Desalting technology is critical to our military. Naval troops, of 
course, depend on desalting facilities to produce fresh water on ships. 
In addition, ground troops have relied on desalting technologies to 
guarantee the availability of potable water in the Middle East and 
around the world. Adequate, efficient, and cheap access to high-duality 
fresh water will be vital to maintaining the readiness and 
sustainability of those troops, and those of our allies.
  My amendment is very simple. It expresses the sense of the Senate 
that improved access to fresh water will be an important factor in 
helping prevent future conflicts in the Middle East, and that the 
United States and its allies should promote and invest in technologies 
to reduce the costs of desalination. In addition, my amendment 
stipulates that the Secretary shall place greater emphasis on making 
funds available for research and development in this area.
  Madam President, this may not seem like an issue that would be a 
priority for a Senator from Illinois. But it affects all of us, and it 
affects the future stability of the world. With the end of the cold war 
and the fear of nuclear annihilation significantly reduced, the next 
military conflict will not likely be over territory or hatred, but 
rather over water rights.
  This month, United Nations officials have expressed fear that wars 
over water could erupt in the next decade. And within the past few 
years, both King Hussein of Jordan and former Prime Minister Rabin of 
Israel have declared that if there is another war in the Middle East, 
it will not be about land, it will be about water. If we can find lower 
cost technologies to convert salt water to fresh water, we can really 
make a difference.
  The world population now stands at approximately 5.5 billion and it 
is rising. In numbers, the world's population grows each year by an 
amount equal to half of the current U.S. population. By the year 2050, 
population experts project a world with ten billion people. And yet, 
while population is rising, water resources are not.
  You do not need to be an Einstein to recognize that we are headed for 
problems.
  Madam President, let me give you some examples of the global water 
crises we currently face. The Aral Sea was once the fourth-largest body 
of fresh water in the world. Soviet experts had assured Khrushchev that 
he could divert water going into the Aral Sea for irrigation purposes 
and that runoff and other sources would eventually replenish the 
temporary water loss. Shipowners were told not to worry. Now, however, 
ships are stranded on dry land, literally 50 miles from the new shores 
of the shrunken Aral Sea.

  The list of affected countries is long. Mauritania is a desperately 
poor country right on the ocean--and yet it can grow only 8 percent of 
its food because of water shortages. Spain is facing the worst drought 
in 100 years. Since 1992, rainfall in the south has been less than 30 
percent of average. And Algeria, Morocco, Tunishia, and Ethiopia will 
all soon face critical problems.
  UNICEF has warned that 35,000 children worldwide--a majority of them 
on the African continent--are dying daily from hunger or disease caused 
by lack of water or contaminated water.
  Madam President, less than 1 percent of the Earth's water can be used 
directly for human consumption, or agricultural uses. As we have to 
deal with diminishing water resources, the only place we can get 
additional water is from the ocean. Desalination can help us address 
this problem.
  U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, responding to a letter 
I wrote him, said: ``I am particularly pleased to hear of your interest 
in water issues and the legislation you are sponsoring on research on 
less costly desalination methods. As you rightly point out, such 
concerns are uppermost in the minds of people in regions where fresh 
water is scarce, not least in my own part of the world. During my 
tenure as Secretary-General, I will do my utmost to promote 
international cooperation regarding this most crucial resource.''
  Clearly, this is an area where we can work together to affect the 
future of humanity. I commend the managers of this bill for recognizing 
the importance of desalination research and I thank them for their 
support of my amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4377) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4378

    (Purpose: To propose an alternative to section 366, relating to 
           Department of Defense support for sporting events)

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, on behalf of myself and Senators Hatch, 
Bennett, and Nunn, I offer an amendment which would clarify the 
authority of the Department of Defense to provide essential security 
and safety assistance to agencies responsible for law enforcement and 
safety services. This amendment would also require reimbursement for 
nonsecurity and safety assistance provided by the Department of Defense 
to civilian sporting events.

[[Page S7161]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), for himself, Mr. 
     Hatch, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Nunn, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4378.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike out section 366 and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 366. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPORT FOR SPORTING EVENTS.

       (a) Security and Safety Assistance.--At the request of a 
     Federal, State, or local government agency responsible for 
     providing law enforcement services, security services, or 
     safety services, the Secretary of Defense may authorize the 
     commander of a military installation or other facility of the 
     Department of Defense or the commander of a specified or 
     unified combatant command to provide assistance for the World 
     Cup Soccer Games, the Goodwill Games, the Olympics, and any 
     other civilian sporting event in support of essential 
     security and safety at such event, but only if the Attorney 
     General certifies that such assistance is necessary to meet 
     essential security and safety needs.
       (b) Other Assistance.--The Secretary may authorize a 
     commander referred to in subsection (a) to provide assistance 
     for a sporting event referred to in that subsection in 
     support of other needs relating to such event, but only--
       (1) to the extent that such needs cannot reasonably be met 
     by a source other than the Department;
       (2) to the extent that the provision of such assistance 
     does not adversely affect the military preparedness of the 
     Armed Forces; and
       (3) if the organization requesting such assistance agrees 
     to reimburse the Department for amounts expended by the 
     Department in providing the assistance in accordance with the 
     provisions of section 377 of title 10, United States Code, 
     and other applicable provisions of law.
       (c) Inapplicability to Certain Events.--Subsections (a) and 
     (b) do not apply to the following sporting events:
       (1) Sporting events for which funds have been appropriated 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) The Special Olympics.
       (3) The Paralympics.
       (d) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require such 
     terms and conditions in connection with the provision of 
     assistance under this section as the Secretary considers 
     necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the 
     United States.
       (e) Report on Assistance.--Not later than January 30 of 
     each year following a year in which the Secretary provides 
     assistance under this section, the Secretary shall submit to 
     the congressional defense committees a report on the 
     assistance provided. The report shall set forth--
       (1) a description of the assistance provided;
       (2) the amount expended by the Department in providing the 
     assistance;
       (3) if the assistance was provided under subsection (a), 
     the certification of the Attorney General with respect to the 
     assistance under that subsection; and
       (4) if the assistance was provided under subsection (b)--
       (A) an explanation why the assistance could not reasonably 
     be met by a source other than the Department; and
       (B) the amount the Department was reimbursed under that 
     subsection.
       (f) Relationship to Other Laws.--Assistance provided under 
     this section shall be subject to the provisions of sections 
     375 and 376 of title 10, United States Code.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I offer an amendment to S. 1745, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, which will 
clarify a current provision in the bill regarding military support to 
civilian sporting events. As you know, I have taken a particular 
interest in military support for civilian sporting events for a number 
of years. I want to ensure that any such assistance does not degrade 
military readiness, demean our men and women in uniform, and burden the 
American taxpayer when the costs of supporting such events should 
appropriately fall to the sponsoring organization which will receive 
the revenues.
  The recommendation of the Senate Armed Services Committee for the 
fiscal year 1997 Defense Authorization Act, already includes a 
provision that would grant the Department of Defense the authority to 
provide security and safety assistance to civilian sporting events such 
as the Olympics. This provision also requires that any assistance 
provided to the sponsoring organization be reimbursed if the event 
results in a profit. However, there have been a number of concerns 
raised regarding this provision.
  Madam President, the principal objection which I have heard raised to 
the current provision is it prevents the Department of Defense from 
supporting civilian law enforcement agencies in providing essential 
security services. As long as we are discussing what is misleading or 
inaccurate information, I would like to inform my fellow Senators that 
the allegations that this provision will prevent such service from 
being provided to law enforcement agencies definitely falls into this 
category. One only has to read chapter 18 of title 10, U.S.C. to 
realize that the DOD is already authorized to provide such assistance 
in permanent law. The current provision does nothing to change this. In 
fact, the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service 
was asked to review this provision to see if there was any conflict 
between it and title 10, U.S.C. In response to this question, the 
American Law Division stated ``in contrast to other statutory schemes 
in which conflicts may be found, little indication of conflict may be 
discerned between section 366 and the provisions already in title 10.'' 
In light of the truth on this matter, I believe that it is 
irresponsible for individuals to object to the provision on these 
grounds. I ask that the letter from the CRS be included in the record.
  I fully understand the need to provide adequate security at these 
types of events and do not advocate the prevention of such assistance. 
We do not want to risk another tragedy like the one that occurred at 
the Munich Olympics. We cannot assume that we are safe from such 
incidents simply because we live in the United States. Our own 
vulnerability to terrorists was demonstrated by the bombings of the 
World Trade Center in New York and the Federal building in Oklahoma 
City.

  However, I have become increasingly concerned that the Department of 
Defense is being forced to provide assistance to major sporting events 
which does little to enhance security or safety. In fact, I find much 
of the support which the Department of Defense has decided to provide 
for the Atlanta Olympics to be disturbing. By the time the Olympic 
games in Atlanta are completed, the military will have dedicated over 
13,000 military personnel and $50 million to support these activities. 
Although this support is being portrayed as necessary to ensure the 
security and safety of the international athletes and Olympic visitors, 
much of the assistance appears to be little more than a subsidy to the 
Atlanta Committee on the Olympic games. After all, section 1385 of 
title 18, United States Code, prohibits the use of the military as a 
posse comitatus. This means that the 13,000 military personnel who will 
be providing security are prohibited from acting as domestic law 
enforcement agents. In other words, they cannot enforce the laws; they 
have no authority to arrest or even detain individuals who engage in 
criminal activities.
  Furthermore, I would like to point out that some of the services 
which will be provided by military personnel may in fact result in 
increased risk to the international athletes and Olympic visitors. One 
example is the military personnel who will be acting as bus drivers for 
the international athletes. While these individuals will receive some 
training prior to the Olympic games, they are not professional bus 
drivers. In fact, they will be less qualified than the professional 
civilian bus drivers they will displace.
  In addition to increasing the danger to the Olympic athletes, the 
provision of bus drivers will negatively impact upon the small 
businesses which were under contract to provide these services. Last 
week, I received a letter from Robert Pounders of Motorcoach Charters 
outlining how the military personnel are displacing his company and 
other small businesses who had contracts to provide transportation 
services to the Olympic athletes. Last month, after the congressional 
defense committees voted to provide the Atlanta Olympics with an 
additional $12.2 million, he received a call canceling his contract 
because these duties will be performed by the military. According to 
Mr. Pounders, his company will now suffer an estimated $160,000 loss. 
In his letter he asked a very important question: ``Why is our tax 
money being used to take away the small business jobs that are the 
backbone of this nation's economy?'' This is a valid and important 
question that we should all ask ourselves whenever we are considering 
using military people for what are essentially commercial activities.
  Madam President, I ask that Mr. Pounders' letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S7162]]




                                           Motorcoach Charters

                                            and Winning Tours,

                                       Richmond, VA, May 17, 1996.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Eleven months ago we contracted all of 
     our motorcoaches for use at the Olympic games in Atlanta, to 
     a professional motorcoach broker working closely with the 
     Atlanta Committee on the Olympic Games (ACOG). We agreed that 
     we would commit our entire fleet of 14 motorcoaches for this 
     event and the broker sent us a small good faith deposit.
       We just received a telephone call from the broker canceling 
     all of our equipment since ACOG has decided to use school 
     buses with military drivers supplied by the Department of 
     Defense.
       For 11 months we have turned down business since our fleet 
     was committed to the Atlanta event. We promised our employees 
     work and got them to commit to the Atlanta games and now we 
     have nothing for them. Not only do we have an irate work 
     force, but we have a severe financial loss just 60 days 
     before our fleet was to be in Atlanta. At this point it 
     appears our employees and our expensive motorcoach equipment 
     will be sitting home while the government plays its own games 
     with our tax money and livelihood.
       I want answers to the following:
       1. How does the government justify the use of military 
     drivers, donated by the Department of Defense, to drive 
     school buses in lieu of all the coaches that were contracted 
     from private enterprises 11 months ago?
       2. Why is our tax money being used to take away the small 
     business jobs that are the backbone of this nation's economy?
       3. What is the Department of Defense ``defending'' with the 
     use of 1000 soldier drivers at the Olympic games--ACOGs 
     bottom line?
       4. Most importantly, how do you think all this will sit 
     with the voters when we release this story to the TV networks 
     ``20/20'', ``Dateline'', and ``Primetime''? This is exactly 
     what they are looking for in their pursuit to expose what is 
     really going on in Washington.
       The government takes away our jobs, takes away our 
     business, gives $50 million to a sporting event and then 
     expects us to pay the bill with the money they took away from 
     us.
       Your response to each of the above questions by the numbers 
     would be most appreciated. My colleagues and I anxiously 
     await your reply.
           Sincerely,
                                               Robert R. Pounders,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                                                         WINN,

                                      Richmond, VA, June 10, 1996.
     Senator John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The following information is a follow up to 
     my letter to you on May 17, 1996, regarding the use of the 
     military to drive buses at the Atlanta Olympics.
       On or about June 5, 1996, I received a telephone call from 
     a Lieutenant Commander Rusty White in Norfolk, Virginia (804-
     322-5169). He was asking us to quote on a training program 
     for sailors under the U.S. Atlantic Command. The program 
     entailed training 50 military men to drive buses for the 
     Olympics. They wanted the men fully trained and pass their 
     Commercial Drivers License test by June 30, 1996.
       To add insult to injury, the government first gives the 
     Olympic Committee military drivers and I lose my contract to 
     perform this service. Then the government has the audacity to 
     ask us to train their men to drive in less than thirty days.
       We are now seeking to institute a lawsuit in order to 
     recover the hundreds of thousands of dollars we will loose 
     since we are unable to re-book our equipment at this late 
     date and our drivers are without work.
       It is no wonder that we can't have a balanced budget when 
     Congress keeps killing all the geese that lay the golden 
     eggs.
           Sincerely,
                                               Robert R. Pounders,
                                                        President.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, some people have alleged that the 
assistance which the military personnel will provide will enhance their 
capabilities and training. In the case of the bus drivers, I would 
argue that the opposite is true. The individuals who will have to be 
trained in order to perform this mission are not military bus drivers. 
Therefore, I believe that we would be hard pressed to demonstrate that 
driving busses will improve the skills necessary for the true military 
mission of these personnel. In fact, I believe that it would be far 
easier to demonstrate that such assistance degrades military 
capabilities because valuable and scarce training time is being wasted 
performing menial tasks.
  In my opinion, this one example highlights how military assistance to 
these sporting events, if taken too far, can result in decreased 
safety, negatively impacts upon small businesses, and potentially 
degrades military readiness. How many accidents will we see as a result 
of this decision? How many small businesses are we intending to 
displace? How many military units will suffer a degradation in their 
readiness in order to provide services which have nothing to do with 
security or safety?
  These questions may only be answered after the Olympic games in 
Atlanta have concluded. I believe that it is the responsibility of the 
Department of Defense and the Congress of the United States to review 
any negative affects of this assistance, and to take whatever 
corrective action is necessary to ensure that there is not a repetition 
of such negative affects in the future.
  Madam President, the bus drivers are only one example of the support 
we are asking the military to provide in the name of ``security and 
safety.'' I believe that we can only consider assistance such as this 
to be security and safety if we use the broadest definitions of those 
words. In fact, we may have to actually redefine those words in order 
to make some of this assistance fit within the definition.
  In addition to the bus drivers, we have heard about the watering of 
artificial turf on the hockey field which is now being portrayed as 
fire safety; the purchase of the Olympic dining facility; and the 
provision of the barges for the Olympic yachting events. Furthermore, 
some military personnel will be used to perform what one military 
officer has referred to as menial labor. I am gratified that the 
supporters of this assistance are not claiming that all of this is 
security and safety. However, I am disappointed these supporters claim 
that it is appropriate for the Department to provide such assistance. I 
believe it is an outrage that fine young Americans, who dedicate their 
lives to the protection of this Nation, should be forced to perform 
tasks such as chauffeuring international athletes and watering 
artificial turf on field-hockey fields. I also believe that it is 
inappropriate to dedicate scarce defense resources on these activities 
unless such support cannot be obtained from another source.

  Although there is supposed to be a reimbursement for some of the 
assistance being provided in Atlanta, there is no guarantee. We have 
already seen ACOG renege on $2.8 million worth of support they had 
originally agreed to provide to the military. In one case, ACOG had 
originally agreed to feed the military personnel who are providing the 
assistance. However, while ACOG is continuing to provide food for the 
other Olympic volunteers, they are now charging the Department of 
Defense for the meals that will be served to the military personnel. In 
addition, although it has been reported that ACOG has reimbursed the 
Department of Defense for the provision of barges at the yachting 
events, this only includes $39,750 for the repair of the barges. There 
is another cost of $9,247 for the towing of the barges to the event 
location which was absorbed by the Department of Defense.
  Madam President, this is another example of the misleading 
information which is being spread about the assistance which the 
Department of Defense is providing to the Atlanta Olympics. Earlier, we 
heard one member state that DOD would be reimbursed for all nonsecurity 
and safety assistance. However, here is a clear example of nonsecurity, 
nonsafety assistance, which will not be reimbursed. I believe that when 
we talk about the $39,750 that will be reimbursed, we should also 
discuss the $9,247 that will not be reimbursed; just to ensure that we 
are not providing misleading information.
  Madam President, I believe that it is also important to discuss the 
fact that Federal tax dollars, including funds provided to the DOD, 
were used to send 9 State and local officials to the 1993 Presidential 
Inauguration. Although, this has been portrayed as ``a unique 
opportunity to study and synthesize the security planning and 
preparation of the Secret Service,'' I am personally skeptical and 
asked the Department of Defense to provide more detail regarding the 
activities of these individuals during this time, including the cost of 
each of these activities. Unfortunately, the response I received was 
that the Army is ``unable to explain decisions made before the 
Secretary of the Army was designated Executive Agent.'' I guess they 
were unable to pick up the phone and call other entities in the 
Department of Defense.
  Madam President, an issue which further aggravates me is the way in 
which

[[Page S7163]]

the Atlanta Committee on the Olympic Games is treating the very 
military from which it asks so much. Recently I received a letter from 
Mr. Tom Roskelly of Annapolis, MD. According to Mr. Roskelly, last year 
he met with a Mr. Charles Snow who is the advance manager for the 
Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games in region 5. The purpose of 
this meeting was to discuss preliminary plans for the Olympic Torch Run 
through Annapolis. At this meeting, Mr. Roskelly suggested that the 
Olympic Torch be carried through the grounds of the Naval Academy 
because it would serve to honor Academy graduates who have participated 
in past Olympic Games; it would provide a very scenic route through 
which to carry the torch; and it would reduce the amount of city 
streets which must be closed down to accommodate the torch run. 
Although these are all very good arguments for carrying the torch 
through the Naval Academy, Mr. Snow curtly informed Mr. Roskelly that 
the Olympic Torch would not be allowed to travel through any active 
military installations. I guess they are afraid of militarizing the 
Olympics.
  Madam President, I ask that Mr. Roskelly's letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            City of Annapolis,

                                      Annapolis, MD, June 4, 1996.
     Hon. John S. McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Mr. Charles Snow, Advance Manager, 
     Region V, Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG) met 
     with me and several members of the United Way of Central 
     Maryland on July 20, 1995 to discuss preliminary plans for 
     the Olympic Torch Run through Maryland's Capital City on June 
     20, 1996.
       At that meeting, I made several suggestions to Mr. Snow 
     including a routing through the United States Naval Academy 
     for what I considered several very cogent reasons:
       1. It would serve as a salute to the USNA alumni who have 
     participated in past Olympic Games.
       2. It would provide a very photogenic route through a 
     registered National Historic Landmark.
       3. It would reduce the amount of City streets which must be 
     closed down to accommodate the torch run (in a City where 
     traffic and parking are always considered to be problems).
       I was curtly informed by Mr. Snow that the Olympic Torch 
     would not be allowed to travel through any active military 
     installation> Although I reminded Mr. Snow that the Naval 
     Academy is an ``open base'' and considered to be one of the 
     foremost visitor attractions in Maryland, he insisted that 
     the prohibition would not allow a change in the routing of 
     the torch run.
       As a corollary matter, I also suggested yet another 
     photographic opportunity involving the Governor of the State 
     of Maryland and the venue of the Maryland Statehouse (the 
     oldest statehouse in continuous legislative use in the United 
     States). Mr. Snow informed me that the torch cannot be 
     touched by any elected official.
       After being rebuffed with my suggestions, I decided to sit 
     back and let Mr. Snow tell me what he wanted from the City--
     no more, no less. I did not ask for any written confirmation 
     of Mr. Snow's comments. As a matter of fact, the meeting 
     resulted in a letter which was requested by Mr. Snow to be 
     written by Mayor Alfred A. Hopkins.
       If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, 
     please do not hesitate to call on me. My Annapolis telephone 
     is (410) 263-1183; FAX (410) 263-8120; E-mail: 
     [email protected]
           Sincerely,
                                               Thomas W. Roskelly,
                                       Public Information Officer.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, another objection which has been raised 
to the current provision is the requirement that the sponsoring 
organization reimburse the Department of Defense for its support if, I 
repeat if, the event results in a profit for that organization. 
Although it is certainly possible that some events may not realize a 
profit, this is certainly not the rule as was demonstrated by the $222 
million made at the Los Angeles Olympics.
  Some argue that the accounting procedures necessary for determining 
if a profit is made would be a nightmare. I personally cannot imagine 
any major event, such as the Olympics, where the officials responsible 
for the management of the event would not already keep track of the 
revenues and expenditures. Perhaps it is simply that some members of 
the sponsoring organizations, such as the International Olympic 
Committee, would object to returning some of the profits of the 
American taxpayers. However, I believe that it is far more appropriate 
to return these funds to the citizens of the United States rather than 
using them to support the luxurious lifestyles of Olympic officials. 
One only has to read a recent article in the Washington Post to see how 
these funds are currently expended.
  Furthermore, I would like to point to chapter 18 of title 10, United 
States Code, which currently outlines the authority for the Department 
of Defense to support domestic law enforcement agencies. This chapter 
contains a number of provisions which already provide the Department of 
Defense with the authority to support law enforcement agencies if such 
assistance is requested I would like to draw everyone's attention to 
section 377 of that chapter which requires the civilian law enforcement 
agencies to reimburse the Department of Defense for the assistance 
which the DOD provides.
  Should we not also require private organizations to reimburse the 
Department? This was not the belief of the Congress and the President 
when Public Law 94-427 was passed. This law included a provision which 
required ``all revenues generated by the Olympic winter games in excess 
of actual costs shall revert to the Treasury of the United States in an 
amount not to exceed the total amount of funds appropriated under the 
authority of section 9 of this Act.''
  Madam President, I would like to address some of the other issues 
which have been raised regarding misleading or inaccurate information. 
One of these issues was the State of Georgia waiving the fees for 
military personnel to obtain a commercial drivers license. It was 
stated that Georgia has agreed to waive all of the fees associated with 
the cost of obtaining such a license, if the license is going to a 
military individual residing in the State of Georgia. As the member is 
aware, this was not always the case, and it was only after members of 
the Senate raised the issue that such an agreement was obtained. In 
addition, while I am gratified that DOD will incur no cost for the 358 
individuals to whom this waiver will apply, I am disappointed that the 
DOD will incur such costs for the other 700 individuals.
  I would also like to address the issue of the military personnel who 
are contributing to the watering of artificial turf on the field hockey 
fields. This is true and everyone is fully aware of the facts. The fact 
that these 25 military personnel will only operate the equipment that 
provides the water to the distribution system in no way diminishes the 
fact that they are being used to provide the water for this artificial 
turf. Calling this assistance fire safety is only an example of the 
broad definition which has been applied to the words security and 
safety in order to justify the provision of such assistance.
  Another issue which was raised was that allegations have been raised 
that military personnel will wash ACOG vehicles. I personally have 
raised that issue based on the information which was provided to me and 
my staff by the General Accounting Office which was looking into the 
issue of what assistance the military was providing to the Atlanta 
Olympics. Subsequent information was provided retracting this 
information and neither I, nor anyone else that I am aware of, has used 
it since.
  Madam President, I would like to thank the members of the Armed 
Services Committee for supporting the current provision in the 
committee's recommendation of this bill. I believe that this provision 
would go a long way toward protecting the interests of the American 
taxpayers.
  However, in order to satisfy the concerns of those individuals who 
believe that the current provision would restrict the Department of 
Defense from providing essential security and safety. I am sponsoring 
this amendment which would clarify the DOD's authority to provide such 
assistance. Before such assistance could be provided, it would have to 
be requested by a civilian official responsible for security or safety, 
and the Attorney General of the United States would have to certify 
that it is necessary to meet essential security and safety needs.
  Madam President, this amendment would also allow the Department to 
provide other assistance to sporting events so long as such assistance 
cannot be reasonably provided by a source

[[Page S7164]]

other than the Department of Defense. In addition, the organization 
requesting this assistance must agree to reimburse the Department of 
Defense for the full costs to the Department of providing this 
assistance, including the personnel costs of any military individuals 
involved in providing the assistance.
  Furthermore, no assistance can be provided if that assistance would 
result in a degradation of military readiness or capability. This means 
that scarce training time could not be used providing assistance which 
does little to enhance the military capabilities of our men and women 
in uniform. Reservists who spend only a few short weeks each year 
preparing for combat, could not forgo this training in order to observe 
pedestrians crossing the streets or driving buses. This requirement 
will help to ensure that whatever level of assistance is provided, it 
is not provided at the cost of military readiness.
  The amendment would also require the Department of Defense to provide 
the congressional defense committees with a report each year after such 
assistance is provided. This report would set forth a description of 
the assistance provided; the amount expended by the Department in 
providing the assistance; and other important information. This would 
allow the Congress to closely monitor the assistance provided pursuant 
to this provision to ensure that such assistance is being provided in 
an appropriate manner.
  Madam President, I ask that the Members of the Senate vote to support 
this provision which clarifies the Department's authority to assist 
civilian law enforcement agencies, protects the interests of the 
American taxpayers, and preserves military readiness.


                            olympic security

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, the amendment rationalizes section 366, 
which provides for Defense Department support for major sporting events 
hosted in the United States.
  Since the DOD authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 was reported 
from the Armed Services Committee last month, there has been much 
attention given to the need to create a strong terrorism deterrent at 
the forthcoming Olympic games in Atlanta.
  I appreciate the concerns expressed and raised by my good friend, 
Senator McCain, and deeply respected his views throughout this process, 
although we disagreed on the language that was incorporated into the 
committee reported version of this bill. But, because we shared the 
same goal, it was only a matter of agreeing upon the means to that end, 
which this amendment represents.
  I, especially, want to thank Senators Nunn, Breaux, Craig, Coverdell, 
and Moseley-Braun; they were leaders among the nearly 65 Senators who 
joined in the effort to make certain that the Atlanta Olympic games--
and all other future sporting events held in this country--would be 
events that all spectators, American citizens as well as foreign 
visitors, could attend with an optimal sense of security. We are not 
just talking about high-visibility Olympic events, but other mass 
sporting activities which draw international attention--and, therefore, 
terrorist interest--like super bowls, goodwill and Pan-American games, 
special and paralympics, and world cups, among others.
  I, particularly, want to thank my friend and colleague from Utah, 
Senator Bennett. His input and initiative on this issue were key.
  The amendment we are adopting to this bill today reinforces the 
message sent by my good friend and ranking minority member of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden, who, in a June 11 hearing on 
Olympic security, warned prospective purveyors of harm to the Atlanta 
games, not even to think about it.
  In fact, as we have learned from the Judiciary Committee hearing, as 
well as a recent CNN series on Olympic security, unprecedented security 
and safety capabilities are being put in place. In a few words, Madam 
President, we have taken every imaginable precaution to ensure the 
security and safety of the 2 million visitors, 40,000 other members of 
the Olympic family, visiting dignitaries from more than 190 countries, 
and the Atlanta community.

  As the Olympic torch winds its way across country, and having just 
seen it pass through the streets of Washington to the White House lawn, 
we have seen an outpouring of public support for the summer games that 
is both refreshing and exciting. The Olympic flame encourages all of us 
to focus on teamwork and competition instead of conflict and strife.
  I urge you to listen to composer and Maestro John Williams' rendition 
of the Atlanta Olympic games' musical theme: Summon the Heroes. It is a 
rousing, patriotic musical restatement of our national pride. It's 
already a hit with the summer Boston Pops' Esplanade Concert series. 
Nothing, Madam President, I repeat nothing, should derail what could be 
the greatest Olympic event in modern history. In fact, I believe that 
our country should give nothing less to the world.
  The Atlanta games are also America's games, said Vice President Gore 
on May 14, 1996. He added that the Federal Government must run the only 
leg that it can: Assuring security.
  Madam President, of course, the Olympic spirit could be extinguished 
in a second should an individual or group decide to turn international 
attention to a radical cause. It is incumbent on us to take steps to 
prevent such a calamity. And, it is a possibility that is all too real 
given the tragic incident at the 1972 Olympic games.
  This amendment will contribute constructively to this colossal 
security and safety effort. I will deal categorically with the two 
important topics of this amendment: Security and financial 
considerations.
  There are four points this amendment makes regarding essential 
security and safety:
  First, the United States is setting a new American security standard 
which, I believe, is necessary.
  This standard is rooted in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
Penalty Act, which passed this body by a 91 to 8 vote, and was signed 
into law by President Clinton last month. The spirit of that law is 
embodied in this amendment: That our commitment to security has no 
partisan fences.
  All future major sporting events will enjoy the best security 
arrangements this country can bring forward. In Judiciary Committee 
hearings on June 11, Israeli antiterrorism expert, Prof. Ariel Mercari 
of Tel Aviv University, warned that terrorists seek out mass events to 
convey an ugly political message.

  This amendment facilitates cooperation between law enforcement 
officials and DOD, and creates a strong security deterrent for such 
games as the Atlanta and Salt Lake Olympics, the World Masters games in 
Portland, and the Goodwill games in New York City, both in 1998, and 
the Special Olympics to be held in Raleigh, in 1999, as well as the 
1999 Women's World Cup, for which such cities as Boston, Orlando, 
Miami, Birmingham, Washington, and Pasadena are likely to compete this 
year.
  Second, the amendment fosters the type of systematic, coordinated and 
comprehensive effort needed across the entire law enforcement, 
security, and safety community to control all forms of terrorism, 
whether they originate from domestic or international sources.
  By inserting a requirement for the Attorney General to validate all 
essential security requests from Federal, State, and local officials, 
DOD support will be entirely consistent with current law regarding the 
use of military personnel and equipment.
  Third, the amendment provides an unprecedented capability to deal 
with modern security threats.
  The memory of the Munich massacre was a common thread in the drafting 
of this amendment. The United States commitments to several 
international conventions and treaties, calling for the protection of 
athletes and other foreign visitors, have been codified into law at 
title 18, United States Code, sections 112(f), 1116(d) and 1201(f). 
These statutes have been strengthened, the net effect of which is the 
creation of a deterrent to terrorism and other criminal behavior so 
potent that only the most reckless persons would risk wrongdoing--but 
it is this type of activity that we are nonetheless prepared to 
prevent.
  The changing nature of terrorism compels this amendment. As the 
Justice Department and FBI witnesses warned us at our June 11 Judiciary 
hearing: it is a changing world, security arrangements made for Los 
Angeles are simply insufficient for Atlanta. Atlanta is unique. The 
needs cannot be

[[Page S7165]]

met by the total law enforcement community in the State of Georgia.
  The fourth security need addressed by the amendment clarifies the 
collection of Federal statutes that embody the legal basis for DOD 
support.
  Public safety remains a governmental responsibility. The amendment 
avoids the risk of abdicating security to a private organization which 
could be obligated to pay for essential security and safety support. In 
such an event, the temptation to cut corners is too great. This was a 
fear expressed by the Justice Department.
  Limitations on the use of military personnel and equipment for 
sporting event support are brought into conformance with existing laws. 
Most notably, the posse comitatus statutes, found at sections 375 to 
377 of title 10, United States Code, are applied with full force. 
Military preparedness will not be sacrificed, and the restrictions on 
military personnel performing such law enforcement activities as 
search, seizure and arrest are explicitly applied.
  Madam President, let me now turn to the parallel concern of many 
members of Congress and citizens: the appropriate use of military 
personnel. We all honor the service of our military people. They should 
not be conscripted into service as servants, chauffeurs, launderers, 
waiters and waitresses, and other demeaning uses--and they assuredly 
will not. This type of misuse of our armed forces has been averted by a 
rigorous requirement that services, other than essential security and 
safety, be agreed to by the Secretary of Defense, and where agreed 
upon, be subject to reimbursement in accordance with section 377 of 
title 10.
  Lastly, Madam President, the amendment avoids last-minute rule 
changes that could have totally disrupted Olympic host entity planning 
by creating financial obligations that were unforeseen, such as the 
reimbursement for essential security and safety, and that could have 
spelled financial ruin and organizational chaos for an event.
  Madam President, I encourage the members of this Chamber to provide 
the same hearty endorsement of this amendment that they gave to the 
recent antiterrorism bill. An overwhelming vote of support will convey 
a message to the entire world that the United States intends to honor, 
fulfill and vigorously prosecute its responsibilities as a global 
leader in the crusade against threats.
  Again, my thanks to my colleagues for their assistance and support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I rise to support the amendment that 
modifies section 366 dealing with DOD assistance to civilian sporting 
events. I thank Senator McCain for his willingness to work with both 
Senator Hatch and me in crafting language that clarifies the manner in 
which the Department of Defense can provide security to civilian 
sporting events in the future. I found that we all had an interest in 
safety and ensuring that government resources are spent wisely.
  Because Salt Lake City, UT, has been chosen to host the 2002 winter 
Olympic games, I have more than a passing interest in ensuring that 
everyone attending the Olympics can do so feeling confident of their 
safety. I believe visitors can have that confidence in Atlanta, and I 
want that to be the case in Salt Lake City. Federal expertise and 
assistance is invaluable to ensuring public safety in such 
circumstances. The Department of Defense also has unique capabilities 
that have proven very useful in supporting an event of this size.
  Senator McCain is known for his vigilance in ensuring tax dollars are 
spent wisely, especially in the Department of Defense. As the chairman 
of the Readiness Subcommittee, and as one whose family has a long 
history of military service to this country, I understand his concern. 
I share his belief that DOD resources must be used very carefully, 
whether it is for a new weapon system or providing Olympic security.
  This amendment will continue to permit the Department of Defense to 
assist government entities responsible for safety and security with 
essential security needs. This assistance is absolutely necessary to 
adequately address the threats to any large international sporting 
event in today's environment. In addition, it will make DOD's 
nonsecurity capabilities available, as they have been in the past, if 
the DOD costs of providing that assistance is reimbursed. This would 
permit the current practice of making available surplus or unused 
equipment that is sitting in a warehouse on loan. The Department of 
Defense will also be required to report to Congress, outlining the 
assistance that has been provided.
  It is my hope that this amendment strikes an appropriate balance 
between accountability and flexibility when Federal assistance is 
needed. Again, I thank Senator McCain for his willingness to work with 
us. I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Hatch for his work 
on this amendment. He is very aware of the terrorist threat, and is 
committed to providing a secure environment for our citizens, athletes, 
and international guests.
  We are on the eve of another Olympics coming to the United States. I 
reiterate my support for Atlanta. I know this has been a long road and 
I wish to thank my colleagues from Georgia, Senator Nunn  and Senator 
Coverdell. They have provided a valuable perspective and given me a 
glimpse of the magnitude of this event, and the efforts that have been 
made to bring the Olympics to the United States.
  As the world gathers to watch the best of the best compete in the 
spirit of good will, I extend my best wishes to Atlanta. May the games 
enjoy every success. It is an honor to have the games here.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I believe this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has, indeed, been cleared on this side.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I urge the Senate adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4378) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4379

  (Purpose: To provide for the payment by the Department of Energy of 
  costs of operating and maintaining the infrastructure of the Nevada 
  Test Side, Nevada, with respect to activities of the Department of 
                          Defense at the site)

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Reid and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Reid, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4379.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 3138. PAYMENT OF COSTS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF 
                   INFRASTRUCTURE AT NEVADA TEST SITE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law and effective as 
     of September 30, 1996, the costs associated with operating 
     and maintaining the infrastructure at the Nevada Test Site, 
     Nevada, with respect to any activities initiated at the site 
     that date by the Department of Defense pursuant to a work for 
     others agreement may be paid for from funds authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Department of Energy for activities at 
     the Nevada Test Site.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Department of Energy, as of September 
30, 1997, is authorized to apply stockpile stewardship funds to 
infrastructure costs of the Nevada Test Site associated with new 
Department of Defense programs at the site.
  Presently, there are significant Department of Defense programs at 
the Nevada Test Site because of its unique capabilities to meet these 
programs' objectives. The Department of Defense chooses to operate at 
the Nevada Test Site because of its unique, one-of-a-kind capabilities 
and because the Test Site offers a more cost-effective option for 
program execution. These benefits are wholly appropriate reasons for a 
Department of Defense program to choose to operate at a Department of 
Energy site.
  The Nevada Test Site has a continuing and overriding mission to 
assure the safety and reliability of the U.S. stockpile that requires 
meeting most of the facility infrastructure expenses.
  This authorization expands the opportunities for cost-effective 
execution

[[Page S7166]]

of Department of Defense programs at the Nevada Test Site by providing 
a facility charge policy similar to that implemented at Defense 
Department facilities.
  In addition to cost savings opportunities, this authorization 
benefits the mandated Test Readiness Program. Test Readiness requires 
trained teams of technicians, drillers, riggers, geologists, 
meteorologists, operations safety specialists, and so forth. These 
experts must exercise their skills to assure a high level of 
proficiency at all times. A healthy and diverse set of operational 
requirements such as derives from many Department of Defense programs 
would assure productive activity that increases the proficiency and 
readiness of these teams.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this amendment authorizes but does not 
require the DOE to pay for infrastructure costs at the Nevada test site 
beginning in FY 1997 from stockpile stewardship funds.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4379) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4380

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning export 
                               controls)

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, on behalf Senator Kyl, I offer an 
amendment that would express the sense of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Kyl, for 
     himself and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4380.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1044. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING EXPORT CONTROLS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Export controls are a part of a comprehensive response 
     to national security threats. United States exports should be 
     restricted where those threats exist to national security, 
     nonproliferation, and foreign policy interests of the United 
     States.
       (2) The export of certain commodities and technology may 
     adversely affect the national security and foreign policy of 
     the United States by making a significant contribution to the 
     military potential of individual countries or by 
     disseminating the capability to design, develop, test, 
     produce, stockpile, or use weapons of mass destruction, 
     missile delivery systems, and other significant military 
     capabilities. Therefore, the administration of export 
     controls should emphasize the control of these exports.
       (3) The acquisition of sensitive commodities and 
     technologies by those countries and end users whose actions 
     or policies run counter to United States national security or 
     foreign policy interests may enhance the military 
     capabilities of those countries, particularly their ability 
     to design, develop, test, produce, stockpile, use, and 
     deliver nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, missile 
     delivery systems, and other significant military 
     capabilities. This enhancement threatens the security of the 
     United States and its allies. The availability to countries 
     and end users of items that contribute to military 
     capabilities or the proliferation of weapons of mass 
     destruction is a fundamental concern of the United States and 
     should be eliminated through deterrence, negotiations, and 
     other appropriate means whenever possible.
       (4) The national security of the United States depends not 
     only on wise foreign policies and a strong defense, but also 
     a vibrant national economy. To be truly effective, export 
     controls should be applied uniformly by all suppliers.
       (5) On November 5, 1995, President William J. Clinton 
     extended Executive Order No. 12938 regarding ``Weapons of 
     Mass Destruction'', and ``declared a national emergency with 
     respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the 
     national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United 
     States posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and 
     chemical weapons and the means of delivering such weapons''.
       (6) A successor regime to COCOM (the Coordinating 
     Commission on Multilateral Controls) has not been 
     established. Currently, each nation is determining 
     independently which dual-use military items, if any, will be 
     controlled for export.
       (7) The United States should play a leading role in 
     promoting transparency and responsibility with regard to the 
     transfers of sensitive dual-use goods and technologies.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) establishing an international export control regime, 
     empowered to control exports of dual-use technology, is 
     critically important and should become a top priority for the 
     United States; and
       (2) the United States should strongly encourage its allies 
     and friends to--
       (A) adopt a commodity control list which governs the same 
     or similar items as are controlled by the United States 
     Commodity Control list;
       (B) strengthen enforcement activities; and
       (C) explore the use of unilateral export controls where the 
     possibility exists that an export could contribute to 
     proliferation.

  Mr. McCAIN. This amendment would express the sense of the Senate that 
it is critically important, and should be a top priority, for the 
United States to establish an international export control regime 
empowered to control exports of dual-use technologies; encourage our 
allies and friends to adopt a commodity control list which is similar 
to the U.S. commodity control List; strengthen enforcement activities; 
and, use unilateral export controls in the case of exports which could 
contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  Madam President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the 
other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has, indeed, been cleared.
  Mr. McCAIN. I urge the Senate adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4380) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4381

  (Purpose: To attach conditions and limitations to the provision of 
            support for Mexico for counter-drug activities)

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Helms, I offer an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Helms, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4381.

  The amendment is as follows:
       In section 1031(a), strike out ``The Secretary of Defense'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``Subject to subsections (e) and 
     (f), the Secretary of Defense''.
       At the end of section 1031, add the following:
       (e) Limitations.--(1) The Secretary may not obligate or 
     expend funds to provide support under this section until 15 
     days after the date on which the Secretary submits to the 
     committees referred to in paragraph (3) the certification 
     described in paragraph (2).
       (2) The certification referred to in paragraph (1) is a 
     written certification of the following:
       (A) That the provision of support under this section will 
     not adversely affect the military preparedness of the United 
     States Armed Forces.
       (B) That the equipment and materiel provided as support 
     will be used only by officials and employees of the 
     Government of Mexico who have undergone a background check by 
     that government.
       (C) That the Government of Mexico has certified to the 
     Secretary that--
       (i) the equipment and materiel provided as support will be 
     used only by the officials and employees referred to in 
     subparagraph (B);
       (ii) none of the equipment or materiel will be transferred 
     (by sale, gift, or otherwise) to any person or entity not 
     authorized by the United States to receive the equipment or 
     materiel; and
       (iii) the equipment and materiel will be used only for the 
     purposes intended by the United States Government.
       (D) That the Government of Mexico has implemented, to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary, a system that will provide an 
     accounting and inventory of the equipment and materiel 
     provided as support.
       (E) That the departments, agencies, and instrumentalities 
     of the Government of Mexico will grant United States 
     Government personnel unrestricted access to any of the 
     equipment or materiel provided as support, or to any of the 
     records relating to such equipment or materiel, under terms 
     and conditions similar to the terms and conditions imposed 
     with respect to such access under section 505(a)(3) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2314(a)(3)).
       (F) That the Government of Mexico will provide security 
     with respect to the equipment and materiel provided as 
     support that is equivalent to the security that the United 
     States Government would provide with respect to such 
     equipment and materiel.
       (G) That the Government of Mexico will permit continuous 
     observation and review by United States Government personnel 
     of the use of the equipment and materiel provided

[[Page S7167]]

     as support under terms and conditions similar to the terms 
     and conditions imposed with respect to such observation and 
     review under section 505(a)(3) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2314(a)(3)).
       (3) The committees referred to in this paragraph are the 
     following:
       (A) The Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations 
     of the Senate.
       (B) The Committees on National Security and International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives.
       (f) Prohibition on Provision of Certain Military 
     Equipment.--The Secretary may not provide as support under 
     this section--
       (1) any article of military equipment for which special 
     export controls are warranted because of the substantial 
     military utility or capability of such equipment;
       (2) any military equipment identified on the United States 
     Munitions List; or
       (3) any of the following military equipment (whether or not 
     the equipment has been equipped, re-equipped, or modified for 
     military operations):
       (A) Cargo aircraft bearing ``C'' designations, including 
     aircraft with designations C-45 through C-125, C-131 
     aircraft, and aircraft bearing ``C'' designations that use 
     reciprocating engines.
       (B) Trainer aircraft bearing ``T'' designations, including 
     aircraft bearing such designations that use reciprocating 
     engines or turboprop engines delivering less than 600 
     horsepower.
       (C) Utility aircraft bearing ``U'' designations, including 
     UH-1 aircraft and UH/EH-60 aircraft and aircraft bearing such 
     designations that use reciprocating engines.
       (D) Liaison aircraft bearing ``L'' designations.
       (E) Observation aircraft bearing ``O'' designations, 
     including OH-58 aircraft and aircraft bearing such 
     designations that use reciprocating engines.
       (F) Truck, tractors, trailers, and vans, including all 
     vehicles bearing ``M'' designations.

  Mr. McCAIN. This amendment would attach conditions and limitations to 
the provision of support for Mexico for counter drug activities.
  Madam President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the 
other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. McCAIN. I urge the Senate adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4381) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4382

       (Purpose: To control the sale of chemicals used to 
     manufacture controlled substances)
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, I offer 
an amendment which would prohibit Federal agencies from selling 
chemicals that could be used to manufacture illegal drugs unless the 
Drug Enforcement Agency certifies that there is no reasonable cause to 
believe that the sale will result in the illegal production of 
controlled substances.
  I believe the amendment has been cleared by the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mrs. Feinstein, 
     for herself, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4382.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1072. SALE OF CHEMICALS USED TO MANUFACTURE CONTROLLED 
                   SUBSTANCES BY FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES.

       A Federal department or agency may not sell from the stocks 
     of the department or agency any chemical which, as determined 
     by the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, could be 
     used in the manufacture of a controlled substance as defined 
     in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     802) unless the Administrator certifies in writing to the 
     head of the department or agency that there is no reasonable 
     cause to believe that the sale of the chemical would result 
     in the illegal manufacture of a controlled substance.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am, along with Senators Kyl and 
Grassley, proposing an amendment to the DOD authorization bill that 
will stop the Government from inadvertently contributing to the 
manufacture of controlled substances. Our amendment requires that no 
Federal department or agency may sell stockpiled chemicals until the 
Drug Enforcement Agency certifies that the sale of the chemical would 
not result in the illegal manufacture of a controlled substance.
  This problem was brought to my attention through a routine 
solicitation to sell iodine by the Defense National Stockpile Center. 
Earlier this year, Defense National Stockpile offered for sale, to the 
highest bidder, 450,000 pounds of crude iodine. Iodine is one of the 
main ingredients in methamphetamine. Defense National Stockpile had no 
idea that iodine was used in making meth, and therefore did not consult 
with the Drug Enforcement Agency regarding the practices of the 
companies that might purchase this iodine at rock-bottom prices. After 
consulting with DEA, at my request, the Defense National Stockpile 
chose to cancel the iodine sale.
  Had my staff not noticed this proposed sale, hundreds of thousands of 
pounds of iodine could be on its way to methamphetamine labs across the 
country--the lion's share probably in my State.
  I have been extremely concerned with the proliferation of 
methamphetamine due to the meteoric rise in hospitalizations and 
arrests from abuse. Earlier this year, Senators Kyl, Reid, Grassley, 
and I introduced the Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. This 
legislation, drafted with the input of the Drug Enforcement Agency, the 
California Attorney General's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, the 
California Narcotics Officers Association, and local, State, and 
Federal and law enforcement, is a carefully crafted, targeted piece of 
legislation aimed at the supply side of the problem. The bill increases 
criminal penalties that can be applied to large-scale methamphetamine 
manufacturers in our Nation; restricts access to the precursor 
chemicals used in mass quantities to produce methamphetamine; and, 
increases the penalties for possession of controlled chemicals or 
specialized equipment used to make methamphetamine
  This legislation also adds the chemicals used to make 
methamphetamine--iodine, red phosphorous, and hydrochloric gas--to the 
Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act.
  You can, therefore, see how an unchecked sale of 450,000 pounds of 
iodine could add to the huge problem we already have.
  I have a particular interest in this issue because of the ravaging 
effects it is having on my State and on other States in the Southwest.
  Let me explain how serious this problem is today:
  Methamphetamine has been around for a long time. But what was once a 
relatively small-scale drug operation run by American motorcycle gangs, 
has now been taken over by the Mexican drug cartels and, according to 
DEA, is now a multibillion dollar industry.
  California--particularly Sacramento, the Central Valley, and the 
Inland Empire--has become the front line in this new and dangerous drug 
war.
  DEA has designated California as the source country for 
methamphetamine--much like Colombia is the source country for cocaine, 
and identified 93 percent of the methamphetamine seized nationwide as 
having its point of origin in California.
  The explosion of this drug is being documented in jails and hospital 
emergency rooms around California, and this epidemic is spreading 
eastward:
  California hospitals--366 percent increase--from 1,466 admissions in 
1984 to 6,834 in 1993.
  Central California hospitals saw a 1,742 percent increase. Sacramento 
hospitals--1,385 percent increase--from 46 cases in 1984 to 637 in 
1993.
  In San Diego, admissions to drug-treatment programs for 
methamphetamine abuse surged 551 percent from 1988 to 1995. In 1994, 
for the first time, methamphetamine admissions outnumbered those for 
alcohol.
  At Sutter Memorial Hospital in Sacramento, babies born with 
methamphetamine in their blood system now outnumber crack babies by as 
much as 7 to 1.
  More than 1,800 deaths were caused by methamphetamine abuse from 1992 
to 1994--a 145-percent increase in just 2 years. The majority of these 
cases occurred in the four western cities of Los Angeles, San 
Francisco, San Diego, and Phoenix.
  The problem is still growing:
  Large-scale labs are now commonplace. Last year, in the central 
valley, law enforcement convicted a man who manufactured in excess of 
900 pounds of methamphetamine, with a street value of $5 million.

[[Page S7168]]

  Literally hundreds of illicit laboratories are located throughout the 
State. San Bernardino and Riverside law enforcement officials say there 
were 589 methamphetamine labs discovered in 1995--in just those two 
counties alone.
  And since the first of this year--just 9 weeks--another 127 labs were 
found in these two counties.
  Part of the problem for law enforcement is that the labs are so 
highly mobile.
  Labs can be set up in apartments, mobile homes, and even moving 
vehicles, and can be dismantled in a matter of hours, making it very 
difficult for police to track and close these labs.
  Law enforcement is now finding labs in hotel rooms. Drug dealers come 
in, set up, produce their drugs, and leave. Hotel staff then find the 
materials left in the rooms.
  California Environmental Protection Agency expects that 1,150 sites 
will require cleanup by the end of this year in California.
  This trend is overwhelming local resources because these labs are 
also very dangerous.
  Most of the chemicals used in these laboratories, such as iodine, 
refrigerants, hydrochloric gas, and sodium hydroxide, are toxic and, in 
the case of red phosphorous, highly flammable or even explosive.
  Two months ago, a mobile home in Riverside County being used as a 
meth lab exploded killing three small children.
  Incredibly, the mother of these children pleaded with neighbors that 
they not call for help. Before firefighters could find the children's 
burnt bodies, the woman walked away from the scene.
  This is a horrifying example of the effects of this drug. But the 
violence associated with methamphetamine is even more alarming. 
Prolonged use of the drug produces paranoid and violent behavior.
  And, because the methamphetamine trade is so lucrative with its low 
production costs and high-profit margin, police are seeing a tremendous 
surge in violence, particularly among rival gangs associated with 
distribution.
  Police in Phoenix say methamphetamine is mainly responsible for the 
40-percent jump in homicides the city is experiencing.
  In Contra Costa County, law enforcement leaders report that 
methamphetamine is involved in 89 percent of domestic disputes.
  Last year in San Diego, rival methamphetamine smuggling rings were 
responsible for 26 homicides.
  In 1994, among all the adults arrested in the San Diego area, 42 
percent of men and 53 percent of women tested positive for 
amphetamines.
  In San Luis Obispo, CA last year, local authorities requested 
assistance from DEA in dealing with spiraling violence that involved 13 
drug-related homicides--in 1 month--committed by gangs in the 
production and distribution of methamphetamine.
  Fighting the spread of methamphetamine should be the responsibility 
of every Federal department and agency. My amendment helps to ensure 
that the Federal Government does not contribute to this crisis.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4382) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4383

   (Purpose: To continue funding for computer-assisted education and 
                               training)

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senators Moseley-Braun, 
Cochran and Lott, I offer an amendment to continue funding for computer 
system education and training.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Ms. Moseley-Braun, 
     for herself, Mr. Lott and Mr. Cochran, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4383.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 223. COMPUTER-ASSISTED EDUCATION AND TRAINING.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under section 
     201(4), $10,000,000 shall be available under program element 
     0601103D for computer-assisted education and training at the 
     Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, my amendment to the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 would continue funding 
for the Computer Aided Education and Training Initiative [CAETI]. This 
program has been authorized for each of the preceding 3 years, and the 
research and development it has funded has advanced the state of 
educational software, and the level of training software available to 
all of the branches of our Armed Forces.
  My amendment would authorize $10 million in fiscal year 1997 
University Research Initiative funds--where the program has 
historically been funded--to continue the successful research currently 
being funded. Because my amendment sets aside funds from an existing 
account, it does not require an offset.
  The CAETI program supports high-level academic research and 
development of computer and networking tools. Projects funded under the 
CAETI program have been specifically chosen for their dual benefit to 
the Department of Defense Dependent School system, and to the Armed 
Forces for military training.
  The Department of Defense estimates that the tools developed under 
the CAETI program will markedly improve student performance in the DOD 
schools, as well as teacher performance. Because of greater efficiency, 
DOD estimates that the development of software and networking 
technology under the CAETI program will result in a net savings of 65 
percent in the cost of education and training.
  As military downsizing continues, there is a continual need to 
provide training to our troops whenever needed and where ever they are 
stationed. This is especially relevant for the reserve forces who often 
have civilian occupations very different from their military jobs. Only 
through the application of high technology distance learning will both 
the active and reserve forces be able to meet their readiness 
requirements. The CAETI program is designed to help meet this 
challenge.
  I would like to talk for a minute about one of the projects being 
funded by CAETI in my home State of Illinois. The Institute for the 
Learning Sciences at Northwestern University [ILS] has a contract to 
develop educational software for use in the Department of Defense 
Dependent Schools.
  The ILS research is based on high-level, academic research. The ILS 
develops models of how we learn most efficiently and most effectively 
based on empirical evidence and the latest research in cognitive 
science and educational theory. They then create software programs 
around these models. The result is education and training software that 
helps people learn what they need to know more quickly and more 
effectively.
  Training software developed by the ILS is already in use by large 
corporations like Andersen Consulting and Ameritech. The Army uses 
their software to train its intelligence officers.
  The ILS is currently developing a software program for use in the 
school system, that will help students learn how to analyze complex 
information and recommend alternatives, as well as improve their 
writing skills.
  The armed services has a long history of pioneering the development 
of advanced technology--technology that can later be applied to other 
facets of our lives. The CAETI program is no exception. The technology 
being developed under CAETI contracts will translate directly into our 
civilian schools and to various industries.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and support 
the development of advanced computer and networking technology.
  Mr. McCAIN. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has, indeed, been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4383) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S7169]]

  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4384

 (Purpose: To require that operational support airlift aircraft excess 
   to the requirements of the Department of Defense be placed in an 
inactive status and stored at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base pending any 
 study or analysis of the costs and benefits of operating or disposing 
                           of such aircraft)

  Mr. LEVIN. I send an amendment to the desk in my own behalf and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4384.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle F of title X add the following:

     SEC. 1072. OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Status of Excess Aircraft.--Operational support airlift 
     aircraft excess to the requirements of the Department of 
     Defense shall be placed in an inactive status and stored at 
     Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, pending the completion 
     of any study or analysis of the costs and benefits of 
     disposing of or operating such aircraft that precedes a 
     decision to dispose of or continue to operate such aircraft.
       (b) Operational Support Airlift Aircraft Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``operational support airlift aircraft'' 
     has the meaning given such term in section 1086(f) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
     (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 458).

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this amendment will require the 
Department of Defense to retire certain operational support airlift 
aircraft while it studies the ultimate disposition of that aircraft 
that is excess to the needs of the Department of Defense.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment has been cleared by this 
side.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, has the amendment been adopted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4384) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________