[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 98 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7225-S7264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

  The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.

                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The assistant 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 Calendar No. 
     433, S. 1745, the Department of Defense authorization bill:
         Trent Lott, Don Nickles, Dirk Kempthorne, Rod Grams, Jim 
           Jeffords, Craig Thomas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, 
           Christopher S. Bond, John Ashcroft, Conrad Burns, Judd 
           Gregg, Larry Pressler, Orrin G. Hatch, Mitch McConnell, 
           Hank Brown, Sheila Frahm.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mandatory quorum call has been waived. The 
question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 1745, the 
Department of Defense authorization bill, shall be brought to a close? 
The yeas and nays are required.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] 
and the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] and 
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Baucus
     Bumpers
     Hatfield
     Inhofe
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 53, the nays are 43. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7226]]

                           Amendment No. 4388

(Purpose: To require a cost-benefit analysis of the F/A-18E/F aircraft 
                                program)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk relating 
to the F/A-18E/F program on behalf of myself and Senator Kohl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself and 
     Mr. Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 4388.

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

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

     SEC. 223. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF F/A-18E/F AIRCRAFT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Report on Program.--Not later than March 30, 1997, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on the F/A/-18E/F aircraft 
     program.
       (b) Content of Report.--The report shall contain the 
     following:
       (1) A review of the F/A/-18E/F aircraft program.
       (2) An analysis and estimate of the production costs of the 
     program for the total number of aircraft realistically 
     expected to be procured at each of three annual production 
     rates as follows:
       (A) 18 aircraft.
       (B) 24 aircraft.
       (C) 36 aircraft.
       (3) A comparison of the costs and benefits of the program 
     with the costs and benefits of the F/A-18C/D aircraft program 
     taking into account the operational combat effectiveness of 
     the aircraft.
       (c) Limitation on Use of Funds Pending Transmittal of 
     Report.--No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act 
     may be obligated or expended for the procurement of F/A-18E/F 
     aircraft before the date that is 90 days after the date on 
     which the congressional defense committees receive the report 
     required under subsection (a).

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment would ``fence'' the funds 
authorized for production of the 12 F/A-18E/F's authorized in this 
legislation until such time as the Department of Defense [DOD] submits 
a cost/benefit analysis to Congress and Congress has an opportunity to 
evaluate whether production of this aircraft should commence, in light 
of the cost and concerns about the benefit of the F/A-18E/F in contrast 
to the F/A-18C/D, a far less costly yet extremely capable aircraft.
  The genesis for this amendment resulted from a General Accounting 
Office [GAO] draft report made available recently entitled ``Navy 
Aviation: F/A-18E/F will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at 
High Cost''. In this report GAO studied the rationale and need for the 
F/A-18E/F in order to determine whether continued development of the 
aircraft is the most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's 
tactical aircraft fleet. GAO concluded that the marginal improvements 
of the F/A-18E/F are outweighed by the high cost of the program.
  Mr. President, in our current fiscal climate, I have serious concerns 
about authorizing funding for such a costly program which according to 
GAO will deliver only marginal improvements over the current C/D 
version of the F/A-18.
  As GAO noted in its report, at a projected total program cost of 
$89.15 billion, the F/A-18E/F program is one of the most costly 
aviation programs in the Department of Defense. The total program cost 
is comprised of $5.833 billion in development costs and $83.35 billion 
in procurement costs for 1,000 aircraft. The administration has 
requested $2.09 billion in fiscal year 1997 for the procurement of 12 
F/A-18E/F's. To date, the Navy has already spent $3.75 billion on the 
research and development phase of the F/A-18E/F program.
  Before I begin to describe GAO's findings, I would first like to 
discuss briefly the role of the F/A-18 aircraft in our Nation's overall 
naval aviation force structure. The Navy performs its carrier-based 
missions with a mix of fighter (air-to-air combat), strike (air-to-
ground combat), and strike/fighter (multicombat role) aircraft. 
Currently, carrier based F-14 fighter aircraft perform air-to-air 
missions; A6E's perform air-to-ground missions; and F/A-18's perform 
both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet 
is the latest version of the Navy's carrier-based F/A-18 strike/fighter 
plane.
  The Navy has based the need for development and procurement of the F/
A-18E/F on existing or projected operational deficiencies of the F/A-
18C/D in the following key areas: strike range, carrier recovery 
payload and survivability. In addition, the Navy notes limitations of 
current C/D's with respect to avionics growth space and payload 
capacity. In its report, GAO concludes that the operational 
deficiencies in the C/D that the Navy cited in justifying the E/F 
either have not materialized as projected or such deficiencies can be 
corrected with nonstructural changes to the current C/D and additional 
upgrades made which would further improve its capabilities.

  One of the primary reasons the Navy cites in justifying the E/F is 
the need for increased range and the C/D's inability to perform long-
range unrefueled missions against high-value targets. However, GAO 
concludes that the Navy's F/A-18 strike range requirements can be met 
by either the F/A-18E/F or F/A-18C/D. Furthermore, it concludes that 
the increased range of the E/F is achieved at the expense of its aerial 
combat performance, and that even with increased range, both aircraft 
will still require aerial refueling for low-altitude missions.
  The F/A-18E/F specification requirements call for the aircraft to 
have a flight range of 390 nautical miles [nm] while performing low-
altitude bombing missions. The F/A-18E/F will achieve a strike range of 
465 nm while performing low-altitude missions by carrying 2 external 
480 gallon fuel tanks. While current C/D's achieve a flight range of 
325 nm with 2-330 gallon fuel tanks while performing low-altitude 
missions--65 nm below the specification requirement of the E/F--when 
they are equipped with the 2-480 gallon external fuel tanks that are 
planned to be used on the E/F, the C/D can achieve a strike range of 
393 nm on low-altitude missions.
  Recent Navy range predictions show that the F/A-18E/F is expected to 
have a 683 nm strike range when flying a more fuel-efficient, 
survivable, and lethal high-altitude mission profile rather than the 
specified low-altitude profile. Similarly, although F/A-18E/F range 
will be greater than the F/A-18C/D, the C/D could achieve strike 
ranges--566 nm with 3-330 gallon fuel tanks or 600 nm with 2-480 gallon 
tanks and 1-330 gallon tank--far greater than the target distances 
stipulated in the E/F's system specifications by flying the same high-
altitude missions as the E/F. Additionally, according to GAO, the E/F's 
increased strike range is achieved at the expense of the aircraft's 
aerial combat performance as evidenced by its sustained turn rate, 
maneuvering, and acceleration which impact its ability to maneuver in 
either offensive or defensive modes.
  Mr. President, another significant reason the Navy cites in 
developing the F/A-18E/F is an anticipated deficiency in F/A-18C 
carrier recovery payload--the amount of fuel, weapons and external 
equipment that an aircraft can carry when returning from a mission and 
landing on a carrier. The deficiency in carrier recovery payload which 
the Navy anticipated of the F/A-18C simply has not materialized. When 
initially procured, F/A-18C's had a total carrier recovery payload of 
6,300 pounds. Because of the Navy's decision to increase the F/A-18C's 
maximum allowable carrier landing weight and a lower aircraft operating 
weight resulting from technological improvements, the F/A-18C now has a 
carrier recovery payload of 7,113 pounds.
  F/A-18C's operating in support of Bosnian operations are now 
routinely returning to carriers with operational loads of 7,166 pounds, 
which exceeds the Navy's stated carrier recovery payload capacity. This 
recovery payload is substantially greater than the Navy projected it 
would be and is even greater than when the F/A-18C was first introduced 
in 1988. In addition, GAO notes that while it is not necessary, 
upgrading F/A-18C's with stronger landing gear could allow them to 
recover carrier payloads of more than 10,000 pounds--greater than that 
sought for the F/A-18E/F--9,000 pounds.
  While the Navy also cites a need to improve combat survivability in 
justifying the development of the F/A-18E/F, it was not developed to 
counter a particular military threat that could

[[Page S7227]]

not be met with existing or improved F/A-18C/D's. Additional 
improvements have subsequently been made or are planned for the F/A-
18C/D to enhance its survivability including improvements to reduce its 
radar detectability, while survivability improvements of the F/A-18E/F 
are questionable. For example, because the F/A-18E/F will be carrying 
weapons and fuel externally, the radar signature reduction improvements 
derived from the structural design of the aircraft will be diminished 
and will only help the aircraft penetrate slightly deeper than the F/A-
18C/D into an integrated defensive system before being detected.
  In addition to noting the operational capability improvements in 
justifying the development of the F/A-18E/F, the Navy also notes 
limitations of current C/D's with respect to avionics growth space and 
payload capacity. The Navy predicted that by the mid-1990's the F/A-
18C/D would not have growth space to accommodate additional new weapons 
and systems under development. Specifically, the Navy predicted that by 
fiscal year 1996 C/D's would only have 0.2 cubic feet of space 
available for future avionics growth; however, 5.3 cubic feet of 
available space have been identified for future system growth. 
Furthermore, technological advancements such as miniaturization, 
modularity, and consolidation may result in additional growth space for 
future avionics.

  The Navy also stated that the F/A-18E/F will provide increased 
payload capacity as a result of two new outboard weapons stations; 
however, unless current problems concerning weapons release are 
resolved--airflow problems around the fuselage and weapons stations--
the types and amounts of weapons the E/F can carry will be restricted 
and the possible payload increase may be negated. Also, while the E/F 
will provide a marginal increase in air-to-air capability by carrying 
two extra missiles, it will not increase its ability to carry the 
heavier, precision-guided, air-to-ground weapons that are capable of 
hitting fixed and mobile hard targets and the heavier stand-off weapons 
that will be used to increase aircraft survivability.
  Understanding that the F/A-18E/F may not deliver as significant 
operational capability improvements as originally expected, I would now 
like to focus on the cost of the F/A-18E/F program and possible 
alternatives to it. As previously mentioned, the total program cost of 
the F/A-18E/F is projected to be $89.15 billion. These program costs 
are based on the procurement assumption of 1,000 aircraft--660 by the 
Navy and 340 by the Marine Corps--at an annual production rate of 72 
aircraft per year. As the GAO report points out, these figures are 
overstated. According to Marine Corps officials and the Marine Corps 
aviation master plan, the Marine Corps does not intend to buy any F/A-
18E/F's and, therefore, the projected 1,000 aircraft buy is overstated 
by 340 aircraft.
  Furthermore, the Congress has stated that an annual production rate 
of 72 aircraft is probably not feasible due to funding limitations and 
directed the Navy to calculate costs based on more realistic production 
rates as 18, 36 and 54 aircraft per year. In fact, according to the 
Congressional Research Service: ``No naval aircraft have been bought in 
such quantities in recent years, and it is unlikely that such annual 
buys will be funded in the 1990's, given expected force reductions and 
lower inventory requirements and the absence of consensus about future 
military threats.''
  Using the Navy's overstated assumptions about the total number of 
planes procured and an estimated annual production rate of 72 aircraft 
per year, the Navy calculates the unit recurring flyaway cost of the F/
A-18E/F--costs related to the production of the basic aircraft--at $44 
million. However, using GAO's more realistic assumptions of the 
procurement of 660 aircraft by the Navy, at a production rate of 36 
aircraft per year, the unit recurring flyaway cost of the E/F balloons 
to $53 million. This is compared to the $28 million unit recurring 
flyaway cost of the F/A-18C/D based on a production rate of 36 aircraft 
per year. Thus, GAO estimates that this cost difference in unit 
recurring flyaway would result in a savings of almost $17 billion if 
the Navy were to procure 660 F/A-18C/D's rather than 660 F/A-18E/F's.
  Mr. President, this is certainly a significant amount of savings. Now 
I know that some of my colleagues will say that by halting production 
of the F/A-18E/F and instead relying on the F/A-18C/D, we will be 
mortgaging the future of our naval aviation fleet. However, Mr. 
President, there is a far less costly program already being developed 
which may yield more significant returns in operational capability. 
This program is the Joint Advanced Strike Technology or JAST Program.

  The JAST Program office is currently developing technology for a 
family of affordable next generation Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] 
aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. The JSF is expected 
to be a stealthy strike aircraft built on a single production line with 
a high degree of parts and cost commonality. The driving focus of JAST 
is affordability achieved by tri-service commonality. The Navy plans to 
procure 300 JSF's with a projected initial operational capability 
around 2007.
  Contractor concept exploration and demonstration studies indicate 
that the JSF will have superior or comparable capabilities in all Navy 
tactical aircraft mission areas, especially range and survivability, at 
far less cost than the F/A-18E/F. The JSF is expected to be a stand 
alone, stealthy, first-day-of-the-war survivable aircraft. Overall, the 
JSF is expected to be more survivable and capable than any existing or 
planned tactical aircraft in strike and air-to-air missions, with the 
possible exception of the F-22 in air-to-air missions. The Navy's JSF 
variant is also expected to have longer ranges than the F/A-18E/F to 
attack high-value targets without using external tanks or tanking. 
Unlike the F/A-18E/F which would carry all of its weapons externally, 
the Navy's JSF will carry at least 4 weapons for both air-to-air and 
air-to-ground combat internally, thereby maximizing its stealthiness 
and increasing its survivability. Finally, the JSF would not require 
jamming support from EA-6B aircraft as does the F/A-18E/F in carrying 
out its mission in the face of integrated air defense systems.
  While the JSF is expected to have superior operational capabilities, 
it is expected to be developed and procured at far less expense than 
the F/A-18E/F. In fact, the unit recurring flyaway cost of the Navy's 
JSF is estimated to range from $32 to $40 million depending on which 
contractor design is chosen for the aircraft, as compared to GAO's $53 
million estimate for the F/A-18E/F. Additional cost benefits of the JSF 
would result from having common aircraft spare parts, simplified 
technical specifications, and reduced support equipment variations, as 
well as reductions in aircrew and maintenance training requirements.
  Given the enormous cost and marginal improvement in operational 
capabilities the F/A-18E/F would provide, it seems that the 
justification for the E/F is not as evident as once thought. 
Operational deficiencies in the C/D aircraft either have not 
materialized or can be corrected with nonstructural changes to the 
plane. As a result, proceeding with the E/F Program may not be the most 
cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's tactical aircraft 
fleet. In the short term, the Navy can continue to procure the F/A-18C/
D aircraft, while upgrading it to improve further its operational 
capabilities. For the long term, the Navy can look toward the next 
generation strike fighter, the JSF, which will provide more operational 
capability at far less cost than the E/F.
  Mr. President, succinctly put, the Navy needs an aircraft that will 
bridge between the current force and the new, superior JSF which will 
be operational around 2007. The question is whether the F/A-18C/D can 
serve that function, as it has demonstrated its ability to exceed 
predicted capacity or whether we should proceed with an expensive, new 
plane for a marginal level of improvement. The $17 billion difference 
in projected costs does not appear to provide a significant return on 
our investment. In times of severe fiscal constraints and a need to 
look at all areas of the budget to identify more cost-effective 
approaches, the F/A-18E/F is a project in need of reevaluation.
  For these reasons, I think it would be prudent to take a go-slow 
approach toward the F/A-18E/F program and allow the Congress sufficient 
time to evaluate GAO's findings and obtain a thorough response from DOD 
to these issues. I ask my colleagues to support

[[Page S7228]]

my amendment to fence all fiscal year 1997 funds authorizing the 
production of F/A-18E/F's until certain conditions are met. I thank my 
colleagues and I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this particular aircraft program has been 
thoroughly examined for program costs, schedule, technical performance, 
and recent test results. The program is on schedule and on cost.
  This is one of those clear examples of where the GAO and the 
Department of Defense are at odds on certain data, and I respect fully 
the very detailed presentation by our distinguished colleague from 
Wisconsin. But I have to assure Members of the Senate that this is a 
matter that has been examined by the Armed Services Committee, and we 
will strongly oppose the amendment.
  The analytical tests for the decision to begin engineering and 
manufacturing development of the program was thoroughly examined by the 
Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense in 1992. A number 
of studies which looked at the future of naval aviation, projected 
threats and the capabilities required to defeat those threats were 
considered. To say now it is a better idea to remain with the earlier 
model of the 18, in our judgment, ignores all of the analyses that went 
into the decisions to develop the newer model and threatens one of the 
best run developmental programs and production programs in progress 
today.
  Therefore, Mr. President, the amendment would have the effect of 
delaying the 18 E/F program for up to 8 months at heavy costs to the 
American taxpayers until we get another study. There will always be 
more capable programs postulated for the future and there will always 
be lesser programs as we look over the past. This program has met all 
the requirements placed on it, is on schedule and at cost. Therefore, I 
urge the Senate to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. President, I see the presence on the floor of the Senator from 
Missouri who has spent a great deal of time in this program.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, briefly to respond to the Senator from 
Virginia, I appreciate his remarks and his great knowledge in this 
area, particularly when it comes to the Navy.
  Let me simply remind my colleagues what this amendment seeks to do. 
It asks, in light of this recently released GAO report, released 
yesterday, that we fence the money until such time as the Department of 
Defense provides us with a response to this, and then there will be 
just a 90-day period afterward, during which we would have an 
opportunity to look at it and GAO would look at it.
  This is a serious report. There may be disagreement. When you are 
talking about $17 billion between the C/D and Super Hornet, I think it 
deserves a look. I am not suggesting, nor have I suggested, the E/F is 
a bad airplane. Clearly, many of the things you indicated about its 
capabilities are there.
  The question that was raised by the report was whether or not the 
current C/D plane can provide these benefits and that perhaps we could 
move directly from the C/D plane on to the JSF plane as a cheaper and 
most cost-effective way. All we are suggesting here then is this brief 
period when we would have a chance to see whether the GAO was on the 
right track and see what the Department of Defense has to say about it.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I have to oppose the amendment as it is now 
worded. I have no objection whatsoever to getting the information on 
the GAO report from the military. I think that is appropriate.
  I think the Senator is absolutely right to raise these questions once 
you have a serious GAO report. But I do not think we can hold up the 
entire funding on this program. I am told it would cost an 8- to 12-
month slip in the program, and then assuming you go forward with the 
program, you end up spending a whole lot more money. So, in an effort 
to save money, you end up spending a lot more money.
  So I have to oppose the amendment as it is now worded. If the Senator 
would like to have his staff work with our staff to hold up a 
reasonable amount of money so it does not throw the whole schedule off, 
to assure the Senator that the report will be forthcoming, I think that 
could be accommodated. But to hold up the entire funding, I would have 
to oppose that.
  I will leave it up to the Senator whether he would like to get a vote 
on this now or would like to take 10 minutes to see if there is a 
portion of the funding that would not disrupt the program but would 
indicate the seriousness with which the information is received. I 
think that would work. I have not discussed this with the other side of 
the aisle. It may be they will not want to do that. Maybe we ought to 
go ahead with a rollcall vote, if that is appropriate, but I certainly 
defer to the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I always appreciate the knowledge and 
experience of the Senator from Georgia and particularly his 
reasonableness. I certainly would like to take the opportunity to 
consult and see if there might be a way to work that out.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object, I will not object to setting 
aside the amendment, but I do want to add some points on the discussion 
of it. I have no objection to setting it aside, but I do seek the floor 
to respond to some of the questions raised by the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me explain why I think this amendment is 
not appropriate, it is not a good idea. The distinguished Senator from 
Georgia has already pointed out that an amendment like this, by 
delaying the production of the aircraft, would inevitably do little 
more than add cost to the total program and to the total buy. There are 
ongoing studies. The Navy and the Defense Department have been 
conducting these studies. They have reviews ongoing, and we will have 
access to not only their comments on the GAO report but their reviews.
  Let me say in summary, the GAO is not flying the airplane. The GAO 
people are not the ones landing fully-weapons-loaded airplanes on 
pitching aircraft carriers in the ocean. The Navy people are. They are 
the ones who made a compelling case for this airplane and the need for 
it. I should point out the F/A-18E/F exceeds the interdiction mission 
of the current C/D models in range by some 40 to 50 percent, regardless 
of the mission profile.

  There is talk about adding additional tanks or larger tanks on the C/
D, but these have been rejected because of restrictive load limitations 
and the structural operational limitations on the C/D on board the 
carrier. The Navy has conducted a thorough engineering analysis on the 
matter of putting larger tanks, for example, on the C/D's and concluded 
this was not suitable for carrier operations.
  The real question is the bringback capability. The current model of 
C/D fleet is at its operational limit in regard to its ability to bring 
back weapons. The E/F will be able to bring back the more advanced 
smart weapons which tend to be heavier than the majority of weapons in 
the fleet today. The E/F, the next generation of the Super Hornet, 
provides future room for future growth and flexibility to accommodate 
the technological advancements into the next century.
  One point the GAO has made is that there is a waiver for the C/D's 
landing restrictions. They say it is a permanent waiver. Well, that is 
not true. NAVAIR has said the waiver was acceptable in the interim, but 
it was up to individual air wings to approve or disapprove depending on 
their own assessments.
  Let me tell you, from the viewpoint of those who have flown on 
carriers and flown on and off of carriers at sea, what will have to 
happen. With the current C/D's to bring back fully loaded the weapons 
and the fuel, the ship will have to increase its speed to maintain 30 
knots or more of wind over the deck, which will increase its fuel 
costs, whether nuclear or conventional; then the pilots will have to 
fly a full flap approach. But if the wind goes over 35

[[Page S7229]]

knots because of unpredictable winds, then the pilot is required by the 
Navy safety manual to fly at half lap and would not be able to land 
with the heavier strike munitions load.
  It is a small and costly window to achieve. Though in some instances 
it can be achieved, it is only because of the extreme skill of our 
carrier crews. It is not an ideal situation to put the pilots or the 
carrier crews at risk when there is such a limited window of acceptable 
operations.
  The new E/F Super Hornet will enable the carrier to cruise at its 
normal speed and the pilots will be able to fly the normal patterns. 
They will not have to drop either their weapons or dump their fuel into 
the ocean to below safe minimums to bring back our most sophisticated 
and expensive ordnance.
  Let us remember, however, that the F/A-18C/D models will continue to 
carry numerous ordnance loads safely and without restrictions covering 
many missions. It is only for certain strike mission loads that the 
waiver is required. But we have to plan for the future. For the Navy, 
that future should and must include the F/A-18E/F. The Super Hornet is 
desired by the customer, the Navy, which has been consistent and vocal 
in its support of procuring the aircraft rapidly and efficiently.
  Further delays in a go-slow approach for this program in its current 
stage are both inappropriate and costly. We cannot sit around and wait 
for future paper airplanes magically to appear. We have modified to the 
limit our older aircraft.
  For many years aviation, and naval aviation in particular, has been 
subject to technical, administrative and political forces which have 
given it the appearance of having no direction. We have been clamoring 
for such direction. Now we have it. The Navy has said, ``This is what 
we need. This airplane is meeting our specs. We need it.'' Let us go 
forward with it.

  I strongly urge this body not to be in a position of ``go-slowing'' 
this program to death. Our pilots want the aircraft. They need the 
aircraft to maintain their critical edge. I urge this body not to pull 
the wings off. Let us let the Navy get about the job of continuing to 
defend this Nation now and in the future.
  The F/A-18E/F program has been a model program, by any measure, and 
remains on cost, on schedule in meeting all performance requirements. 
The Navy is developing, at one-half to one-third the cost of a new-
start program, a highly capable carrier-based tactical aircraft.
  The amendment, as written, would divert program management attention 
away from the execution of the program and, if yet another program 
review were to be required, could impose as much as an 8-month delay in 
the program. This delay would affect the 3-year flight test program, 
the operational evaluation, and IOC of the first squadron.
  I think that the formal program reviews which are already being 
conducted are enough. The analytical basis of the program was 
thoroughly examined at the previous milestone decision, and the program 
has performed precisely to the plan approved at that time. I believe 
there are studies going on, and thus this amendment is unnecessary to 
ensure that we continue to get the kind of additional capability that 
the Navy, its pilots, and its aircraft crews demand and need.
  I urge my colleagues, if this amendment is brought up for a vote, to 
oppose the amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I am coming to the end of the debate on this portion. I want to 
respond to the Senator from Missouri very briefly.
  Let us be clear what we are attempting. We are in a period here where 
everyone in the country knows we are trying to find places where we can 
reduce spending. There are a number of areas that receive very strict 
scrutiny. There is a sense--it is not held by just one party--that 
perhaps sometimes the defense spending does not get the same scrutiny 
that other areas do. Sometimes it leads to defense bashing which may 
not be justified. It is even possible, if people get an attitude that 
the Defense Department expenditures are not scrutinized, that there may 
develop an attitude in this country that would actually threaten 
national security, that it may become difficult for those advocating 
defense expenditures to be believed, and that there are those who do 
not take a warning signal seriously.
  All that we are suggesting here in this amendment is that a very 
recent report, yesterday, from the General Accounting Office says--not 
that this is a bad aircraft, I say to the Senator from Missouri, not 
that it does not provide perhaps some additional benefits; it may be 
and probably would turn out that in some areas this is a more capable 
airplane--but the question is, is the marginal benefit of those 
improvements sufficient to justify a $17 billion difference in cost, 
vis-a-vis the C/D planes? That is the issue.
  We are not stopping the plane here. We are not saying it should never 
be continued. We are saying that when a report comes out from the GAO 
entitled, ``F/A-18E/F Will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at 
High Cost,'' it is incumbent on us in the U.S. Senate to stop for a bit 
and find out what it is all about. $17 billion is real money.

  If there is an opportunity here to ask some questions and find out 
maybe, just possibly, the Navy, the Defense Department could go with 
the C/D's, I think that is our obligation. The Senator from Georgia has 
suggested perhaps a way in which we can allow more of this to go 
forward while the questions are answered. We are exploring that at this 
point. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there is no question that we need to study 
carefully all of the views and opinions and the best information 
available on any program like this. But I suggest that if you take a 
look at the series of reviews and experiments, tests, and evaluations 
that have been done on this plane and that will be done, there is no 
need, unless and until we find from the Navy that the GAO has raised 
questions which they have not addressed or we can find that responses 
by the Defense Department are not adequate, there is no reason to raise 
further the cost of this program and delay it even further.
  The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and 
Acquisition completed a review of the F/A-18E/F program on March 25 of 
this year. As of that time, the program review included program cost, 
schedule, and technical performance, examination of the formal exit 
criteria which had been approved at the previous milestone, and results 
of an early operational assessment conducted by the Navy's commander, 
Operational Test and Evaluation Force. This assessment was based on 
extensive documentation review, modeling and simulation, and analysis 
flight test data from the first two test aircraft.
  In May 1996, notification was provided to Congress that the review 
had been successfully completed and the Navy had authorized contracting 
for long-lead items for the first low-rate initial production of the 
aircraft.
  The Office of the Secretary of Defense is scheduled to conduct 
another program review in March 1997. At that time, all aspects of the 
program will again be examined prior to authorizing full funding for 
the procurement of the first low-rate initial production aircraft.
  The analytical basis for the decision to begin engineering and 
manufacturing development of the F/A-18E/F program was thoroughly 
evaluated by both the Department of the Navy and the Department of 
Defense prior to the milestone decision in May of 1992.
  Numerous studies which looked at the future of naval aviation, 
projected threats, and capabilities required to defeat those threats 
were considered as part of these analyses. It is not to say that we 
should not continue to review and analyze, look at the cost and 
determine the capability. That is an ongoing process.
  What I am saying, Mr. President, is we could significantly increase 
the cost of the program, throw production off schedule, and delay the 
availability of aircraft which the Navy said they have needed by 
putting a roadblock in the way of the initial low-rate production of 
the aircraft. This is not the time to throw a monkey wrench into a 
program which has been on schedule,

[[Page S7230]]

above performance, and well within cost parameters at this time.
  I urge my colleagues not to delay the program.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin and the 
Senator from Missouri. I think there has been a good debate on this. I 
suggest the Senator lay aside his amendment. We can see if we can find 
a way to see that the report is forthcoming, without disrupting the 
program. It seems to me that is the way to proceed.
  If not, I would be joined with the Senator from Missouri in moving to 
table the amendment. I believe the staff is prepared to work with your 
staff on this.
  I have a call in for the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, who 
has two amendments that will require rollcalls. In the meantime, I 
suggest we clear these amendments that have all been agreed to or are 
going to be agreed to by both sides.
  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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the pending amendments have been laid 
aside.


                           Amendment No. 4387

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering is intended to 
better facilitate our pledge of material assistance to the armed forces 
of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina by ensuring the lowest fair 
price of the equipment we provide to their cause.
  When the President dispatched United States troops to Bosnia last 
year, he did so with the stipulation that they would be there only a 
year. The administration has since softened the deadline by indicating 
that troops may still be there on December 19, but that withdrawal will 
begin on that date. This latest commitment on withdrawal is not 
entirely reassuring. It is quite plausible that withdrawal will begin 
as stated, but our overall presence there may be drawn out 
indefinitely.
  A deadline was never an exit strategy. Last year, when then Senate 
majority leader, Senator Bob Dole, and I led the effort to support the 
President's prerogatives as Commander in Chief and indirectly to 
support his dispatch of more than 20,000 American troops to Bosnia, we 
made clear our reservations about simply imposing a deadline. We also 
suggested the outline of a true exit strategy. The centerpiece of that 
strategy, as Senator Dole and I have since repeated on countless 
occasions, was United States leadership in the effort to adequately 
equip and train the Bosnian Armed Forces. Only when that nation can 
defend itself against aggression, which over the course of 3\1/2\ years 
of war reduced its territory by half, will the peace be safe without 
us.
  We tried to address this issue last year by including $100 million in 
drawdown authority for Bosnia in the Foreign Operations appropriations 
bill. The amendment I am offering today simply seeks to ensure that the 
$100 million in equipment to be transferred to Bosnia is accounted for 
in a manner similar to the way it is in the case of other American 
allies. I am not advocating unlimited material support for Bosnia 
because of the impact on our own military readiness. But in order to 
get the most of the $100 million, we should see to it that the 
equipment is valued at the lowest possible fair price. This amendment 
gives us this assurance.
  The amendment expresses a sense of the Senate that the pricing of 
equipment be lowest in order to maximize the amount of equipment 
provided to Bosnia and Herzegovina under current drawdown authority. I 
believe the amendment has been cleared by the other side.
  Mr. NUNN. This amendment has been cleared. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4387) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4389

     (Purpose: To authorize the Air National Guard to provide fire 
protection services and rescue services relating to aircraft at Lincoln 
                    Municipal Airport, Lincoln, NE)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Exon, I offer an 
amendment that would allow the Nebraska National Guard to provide fire 
protection services and rescue services relating to aircraft at Lincoln 
Municipal Airport, Lincoln, NE.
  Currently, the Air Guard and local authority share this duty. This 
amendment would eliminate unnecessary duplication. The air guard would 
be reimbursed for assuming the entire firefighting mission.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Exon, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 4389.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 368. AUTHORITY OF AIR NATIONAL GUARD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN 
                   SERVICES AT LINCOLN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, LINCOLN, 
                   NEBRASKA.

       (a) Authority.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the 
     Nebraska Air National Guard may provide fire protection 
     services and rescue services relating to aircraft at Lincoln 
     Municipal Airport, Lincoln, Nebraska, on behalf of the 
     Lincoln Municipal Airport Authority, Lincoln, Nebraska.
       (b) Agreement.--The Nebraska Air National Guard may not 
     provide services under subsection (a) until the Nebraska Air 
     National Guard and the authority enter into an agreement 
     under which the authority reimburses the Nebraska Air 
     National Guard for the cost of the services provided.
       (c) Conditions.--These services may only be provided to the 
     extent that the provision of such services does not adversely 
     affect the military preparedness of the Armed Forces.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4389) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4390

(Purpose: To state the sense of Congress regarding the authorization of 
appropriation and appropriation of funds for military equipment and not 
  identified in a budget request of the Department of Defense and for 
                     certain military construction)

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

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Robb, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 4390.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1014. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING AUTHORIZATION OF 
                   APPROPRIATION AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR 
                   MILITARY EQUIPMENT NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE BUDGET 
                   REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR 
                   CERTAIN MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) to the maximum extent practicable, each House of 
     Congress should consider the authorization of appropriation, 
     and appropriation, funds for the procurement of military 
     equipment only if the procurement is included--
       (A) in the budget request of the President for the 
     Department of Defense; or
       (B) in a supplemental request list provided to the 
     congressional defense committees, upon request of such 
     committees, by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, by the 
     military departments, by the National Guard Bureau, or by the 
     officials responsible for the administration of the Reserves;
       (2) the recommendations for procurement in a defense 
     authorization bill or a defense appropriations bill reported 
     to the Senate or the House of Representatives which reflect a 
     change from the budget request referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A) should be accompanied in the committee report relating 
     to the bill by a justification of the national security 
     interest addressed by the change;
       (3) the recommendations for military construction projects 
     in a defense authorization bill or a defense appropriations 
     bill reported to the Senate or the House of Representatives 
     which reflect a change from such a

[[Page S7231]]

     budget request should be accompanied by a justification in 
     the committee report relating to the bill of the national 
     security interest addressed by the change; and
       (4) the recommendations for procurement of military 
     equipment, or for military construction projects, in a 
     conference to resolve the differences between the two Houses 
     relating to a defense authorization bill or a defense 
     appropriations bill which recommendations reflect a change 
     from the original recommendation of the applicable committee 
     to either House should be accompanied by a justification in 
     the statement of managers of the conference report of the 
     national security interest addressed by the change.

  Mr. NUNN. This is not the amendment, I believe, that we have problems 
with. This amendment would state that it is the sense of the Congress 
that the defense authorization appropriations bills should rely 
primarily on the budget request.
  I am told this is not cleared. I withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4390) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 4391

   (Purpose: To require a plan for repairs and stabilization of the 
historic district at the Forest Glen Annex of Walter Reed Army Medical 
                              Center, MD)

  Mr. NUNN. On behalf of Senator Sarbanes, I offer an amendment to 
require a plan for basic repairs and stabilization measures for the 
historic district of the Forest Glen Annex of Walter Reed Army Medical 
Center, MD.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Sarbanes, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4391.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of title XXI, add the following:

     SEC. 2105. PLAN FOR REPAIRS AND STABILIZATION OF THE HISTORIC 
                   DISTRICT AT THE FOREST GLEN ANNEX OF WALTER 
                   REED MEDICAL CENTER, MARYLAND.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a comprehensive plan for 
     basic repairs and stabilization measures throughout the 
     historic district at the Forest Glen Annex of Walter Reed 
     Army Medical Center, Maryland, together with funding options 
     for the implementation of the plan.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment 
directing the Secretary of the Army to submit a comprehensive plan for 
basic repairs and stabilization measures needed throughout the historic 
district at the Forest Glen Annex of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 
MD. This plan would also include funding options for the implementation 
of such plan.
  The Walter Reed Army Medical Center Annex at Forest Glen, MD is a 
190-acre complex located just north of the Silver Spring business 
district. It was a former women's seminary known as the National Park 
Seminary. Acquired by the Army in 1943 by authority of the War Powers 
Act of 1942, it has served as a rehabilitation center and psychiatric 
facility for soldiers from World War II through the Vietnam war.
  The former college campus also contains approximately two dozen 
historic buildings on approximately 24 acres which comprise what is now 
referred to as the National Park Seminary Historic District. The site 
was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1972. The 
site contains a number of historic or unique buildings, including 
houses shaped like a Dutch windmill, an English castle, a Japanese 
pagoda, a French chateau, and an Italian villa. Unfortunately, over the 
many years, many of these buildings have suffered substantial 
deterioration and neglect.
  The Army has sought unsuccessfully to excess the property for several 
years and has continued to plan for its eventual disposal. The National 
Trust has continued to work with the Army to assist in its assessment 
of options for the reuse of the property. During this time, even the 
most basic repairs to the buildings were not undertaken. Reports 
prepared by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Save Our 
Seminary and other organizations have found that, in general, the 
property is poorly maintained and insufficiently secure. Routine 
preventative maintenance, such as cleaning out gutters, is not being 
performed. Repairs to obvious deficiencies, such as holes in the roof 
and broken windows, are not being made in a timely way. On site 
security is lax. Fire alarm and fire suppression systems are not being 
adequately maintained.
  The military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 1990 
contained a provision directing the Department of the Army to provide 
up to $3 million for necessary repairs at the annex and to work with 
the Montgomery County government and local citizens groups in the 
planning process for this site. Although we understand that $2 million 
was allocated by the Army for the repair and maintenance of historic 
buildings, all of this money was apparently used for architectural 
planning and design of roof work. However, to date, no funding has been 
provided for these major repairs and the buildings are deteriorating at 
a faster rate than ever.
  The Army developed a master plan for the site which called for the 
existing historic buildings to be maintained and occupied by the Army 
as long as it retains ownership to ensure their maintenance and 
security. The master plan also identified specific maintenance 
priorities with work on repair and replacement of deteriorated roofs at 
the top of the list. In addition, a previous commanding officer at the 
Walter Reed Army Medical Center submitted a letter stating, ``WRAMC 
will continue to request funding for maintenance of the historic 
district and make every effort to halt the deterioration of these 
structures.'' Despite the findings of the master plan and the 
statements of support by Army officials, no work has been done to 
repair or maintain these buildings.
  In 1994 following the burning of the historic Odeon Theatre resulting 
in its destruction by arson, the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation and Save our Seminary jointly filed a lawsuit against the 
Army claiming that the Army's neglect of the buildings violated the 
National Historic Preservation Act. The lawsuit is still pending.
  My amendment directs the Department of the Army to develop and submit 
a plan with appropriate funding options to implement such a plan for 
basic repairs and stabilization measures throughout the historic 
district at the Forest Glen Annex of Walter Reed Army Medical Center 
within 30 days of the enactment of this act. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4391) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCain. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4392

(Purpose: To modify the boundaries of the White Sands National Monument 
   and the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, and to modify the 
        boundary of the Bandelier National Monument, New Mexico)

  Mr. NUNN. On behalf of Senator Bingaman, I offer an amendment 
authorizing the Secretaries of the Interior and the Army to exchange 
administrative jurisdiction of the White Sands National Monument and 
the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico for purposes of creating 
easily identifiable and manageable boundaries.
  I believe the amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], Mr. Bingaman, for 
     himself, and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4392.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . MODIFICATION OF BOUNDARIES OF WHITE SANDS NATIONAL 
                   MONUMENT AND WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to effect an 
     exchange between the Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of the Army of administrative jurisdiction over the 
     lands described in subsection (c) in order to facilitate 
     administration of the White Sands National Monument and the 
     White Sands Missile Range.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Missile range.--The term ``missile range'' means the 
     White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, administered by the 
     Secretary of the Army.

[[Page S7232]]

       (2) Monument.--The term ``monument'' means the White Sands 
     National Monument, New Mexico, established by Proclamation 
     No. 2025 (16 U.S.C. 431 note) and administered by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (c) Exchange of Jurisdiction.--The lands exchanged under 
     this Act are the lands generally depicted on the map entitled 
     ``White Sands National Monument, Boundary Proposal'', 
     numbered 142/80,061 and dated January 1994, comprising--
       (1) approximately 2,524 acres of land within the monument 
     that is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army, 
     which are transferred to the Secretary of the Interior;
       (2) approximately 5,758 acres of land within the missile 
     range abutting the monument, which are transferred to the 
     Secretary of the Interior; and
       (3) approximately 4,277 acres of land within the monument 
     abutting the missile range, which are transferred to the 
     Secretary of the Army.
       (d) Boundary Modification.--The boundary of the monument is 
     modified to include the land transferred to the Secretary of 
     the Interior and exclude the land transferred to the 
     Secretary of the Army by subsection (c). The boundary of the 
     missile range is modified accordingly.
       (e) Administration.--
       (1) Monument.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     administer the lands transferred to the Secretary of the 
     Interior by subsection (c) in accordance with laws (including 
     regulations) applicable to the monument.
       (2) Missile range.--The Secretary of the Army shall 
     administer the lands transferred to the Secretary of the Army 
     by subsection (c) as part of the missile range.
       (3) Airspace.--The Secretary of the Army shall maintain 
     control of the airspace above the lands transferred to the 
     Secretary of the Army by subsection (c) as part of the 
     missile range.
       (f) Public Availability of Map.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of the Army shall prepare, and the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall keep on file for public 
     inspection in the headquarters of the monument, a map 
     showing the boundary of the monument as modified by this 
     Act.
       (g) Waiver of Limitation Under Prior Law.--Notwithstanding 
     section 303(b)(1) of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 
     1978 (92 Stat. 3476), land or an interest in land that was 
     deleted from the monument by section 301(19) of the Act (92 
     Stat. 3475) may be exchanged for land owned by the State of 
     New Mexico within the boundaries of any unit of the National 
     Park System in the State of New Mexico, may be transferred to 
     the jurisdiction of any other Federal agency without monetary 
     consideration, or may be administered as public land, as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate.

     SEC.   . BANDELIER NATIONAL MONUMENT.

       (a) Findings and Purpose.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) under the provisions of a special use permit, sewage 
     lagoons for Bandelier National Monument, established by 
     Proclamation No. 1322 (16 U.S.C. 431 note) (referred to in 
     this section as the ``monument'') are located on land 
     administered by the Secretary of Energy that is adjacent to 
     the monument; and
       (B) modification of the boundary of the monument to include 
     the land on which the sewage lagoons are situated--
       (i) would facilitate administration of both the monument 
     and the adjacent land that would remain under the 
     administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of Energy; and
       (ii) can be accomplished at no cost.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to modify the 
     boundary between the monument and adjacent Department of 
     Energy land to facilitate management of the monument and 
     Department of Energy land.
       (b) Boundary Modification.--
       (1) Transfer of administrative jurisdiction.--There is 
     transferred from the Secretary of Energy to the Secretary of 
     the Interior administrative jurisdiction over the land 
     comprised approximately 4.47 acres depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Boundary Map, Bandelier National Monument'', No. 
     315/80,051, dated March 1995.
       (2) Boundary modification.--The boundary of the monument is 
     modified to include the land transferred by paragraph (1).
       (3) Public availability of map.--The map described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for public 
     inspection in the Lands Office at the Southwest System 
     Support Office of the National Park Service, Santa Fe, New 
     Mexico, and in the Superintendent's Office of Bandelier 
     National Monument.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Domenici, I 
propose an amendment that will allow for better administration, law 
enforcement, and operational procedures for both the White Sands 
National Monument and the White Sands Missile Range. The bill will 
exchange about 10,000 acres along the border of the White Sands Missile 
Range and the White Sands Monument which abut each other. It also 
transfers to the monument the administrative jurisdiction over about 
2,500 acres which lie within the White Sands National Monument but are 
currently controlled by the White Sands Missile Range.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter and an information paper be 
printed in the Record. The letter, dated June 27, 1996, is from the 
National Park Service and is signed by Roger G. Kennedy. It states that 
the Department does not have a problem with the amendment. The letter 
further states that the Office of Management and Budget has no 
objection to the presentation of this report for consideration before 
the Senate. The second document is an information paper from the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of the Army, Paul W. Johnson. The paper states that 
the Department of the Army supports this legislation. It also states 
that the Office of Management and Budget has no objection to the 
presentation of this amendment.
  Mr. President, the area that I am speaking about is a unique 
geological formation. This gypsum deposit known as ``White Sands'' is 
very important to my home State of New Mexico. The sands cover 
approximately 275 square miles with about 40 percent lying within the 
monument and the remaining portion of the dunes, to the south and the 
east, belonging to the White Sands Missile Range.
  As a brief history, on January 18, 1933, President Hoover designated 
142, 987 acres, in the Tularosa Basin, as the National Park. From the 
very beginning, the park has been a success. Within its first 2 years 
of operation, the White Sands monument shattered the attendance records 
of the 23-unit Southwestern National Monuments in the Four Corner 
States of Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                        National Park Service,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 1996.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: Thank you for providing the National 
     Park Service the opportunity to comment on the draft 
     amendment to modify the boundaries of the White Sands 
     National Monument New Mexico, and to modify the boundary of 
     the Bandelier National Monument, New Mexico.
       The National Park Service believes the proposed boundary 
     modifications will facilitate the management and 
     administration of White Sands National Monument and Bandelier 
     National Monument. The proposed boundary modifications will 
     not result in any land acquisition cost nor any additional 
     management cost.
       We do not have any problem with this amendment. Thank you 
     for your continued interest in the National Park Service.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no 
     objection to the presentation of this report for the 
     consideration of the Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Roger G. Kennedy,
     Director.
                                                                    ____


                          [Information Paper]

                                                    June 17, 1996.
     Subject: S. 1745H, 104th Congress.
       1. Subject bill authorizes an exchange of property between 
     the Department of the Interior and the Department of the 
     Army.
       2. The purpose of the bill is to adjust the White Sands 
     National Monument's boundary with the White Sands Missile 
     Range. The action is essentially a housekeeping measure 
     designed to provide both agencies with a more easily 
     identifiable and manageable mutual boundary.
       3. The Department of the Army supports subject legislation.
       4. The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from 
     the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no 
     objection to the presentation of this information paper for 
     the consideration of the Senate.
                                                  Paul W. Johnson,
                           Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in June 1941, the U.S. Army petitioned 
for 1.25 million acres of public and private land in the Tularosa Basin 
for a bombing range. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, President 
Roosevelt approved the Army's request. The Trinity site, where the 
first atomic bomb was successfully tested on July 16, 1945 is part of 
the range.
  With the region's open space and supportive civic leadership, both 
the monument and the missile range have been successfully neighbors for 
many years.
  Mr. President, this amendment will help both the monument and the 
missile range manage their property more efficiently.
  Mr. McCAIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4392) was agreed to.

[[Page S7233]]

  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4393

     (Purpose: To prohibit the use of prior fiscal year funds for 
 development and procurement of the Pulse Doppler Upgrade modification 
                    to the AN/SPS-48E radar system)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Smith, I offer an 
amendment placing limitations on the expenditure of priority-year funds 
for radar modernization. I believe this has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Smith, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4393.

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

     SEC. 125. RADAR MODERNIZATION.

       Funds appropriated for the Navy for fiscal years before 
     fiscal year 1997 may not be used for development and 
     procurement of the Pulse Doppler Upgrade modification to the 
     AN/SPS-48E radar system.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, it is reality of declining defense budgets 
that not every program conceived by the Armed Forces or the defense 
industry can be funded. The Services are forced to examine their 
military requirements and prioritize among many competing programs. 
When they do, disappointed defense contractors may seek legislative 
intervention to achieve objectives they could not satisfy in the 
budgeting process. An example of such activity exists in the House 
version of the defense authorization bill. The bill contains a 
provision that would require the Secretary of the Navy to spend $29 
million, authorized and appropriated for other purposes in fiscal years 
before fiscal year 1997, for development and procurement of a pulse 
Doppler upgrade modification for the Navy's AN/SPS-48E radar system. In 
other words this provision would force the Navy to take money away from 
programs of higher priority that were considered and approved by 
Congress in prior years and allocate it to a program that failed to 
make the cut.
  Aside from this provision's abuse of the congressional authorization 
and appropriation process, complying with it would create an outyear 
demand for substantial additional resources that are not in the future 
years defense program. Thus, its fiscal abuses would proliferate into 
the future to undermine stronger and more urgently needed programs.
  In summary, we will be confronted in conference by a provision in the 
House bill that seeks to earmark prior year finds for a program for 
which there is no funding in the budget or in the future years defense 
program, for which there is no development or procurement plan, and for 
which there would be substantial outyear financial burden. I think it 
important to provide our future conferees clear guidance that such a 
provision is unacceptable. My amendment would accomplish this. I 
encourage my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. NUNN. This amendment has been cleared. I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4393) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4394

(Purpose: To allow the Secretary of Energy to waive limitations on the 
   use of foreign technology in environmental restoration and waste 
                         management contracts)

  Mr. NUNN. On behalf of Senators Johnston and Murkowski, I offer an 
amendment allowing the Department of Energy to grant Britain and France 
access to certain prescribed information in order to conduct 
environmental cleanup and waste management activities of DOD sites.
  I believe this has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Johnston, for 
     himself and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4394.

  The amendment is as follows:

     ``SEC.   . FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY.

       ``Section 2536(b) of title 10, United States Code is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Waiver Authority.--(1) The Secretary concerned may 
     waive the application of subsection (a) to a contract award 
     if--
       ``(A) the Secretary concerned determines that the waiver is 
     essential to the national security interests of the United 
     States; or
       ``(B) in the case of a Department of Energy contract 
     awarded for environmental restoration, remediation, or waste 
     management at a Department of Energy facility--
       ``(i) the Secretary determines that the waiver will advance 
     the environmental restoration, remediation, or waste 
     management objectives of the Department of Energy and will 
     not harm the national security interests of the United 
     States; and
       ``(ii) the entity to which the contract is awarded is 
     controlled by a foreign government with which the Secretary 
     is authorized to exchange Restricted Data under section 
     144(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2164(c)).
       ``(2) The Secretary of Energy shall notify the appropriate 
     committees of Congress of any decision to grant a waiver 
     under paragraph (1)(B). The contract may be executed only 
     after the end of the 45-day period beginning on the date the 
     notification is received by the committees.

  Mr. McCAIN. This amendment has been cleared on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4394) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4395

    (Purpose: To increase by $9,000,000 the amount authorized to be 
appropriated for the Air Force for procurement of one UH-1N helicopter 
                               simulator)

  Mr. McCAIN. On behalf of Senator Domenici, I offer an amendment to 
provide $9 million in procurement of one UH-1N helicopter simulator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4395.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In section 103(3), strike out ``$5,880,519,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``5,889,519,000''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, This amendment will authorize $9 million 
to equip the Air Force Theater Air Command Control and Simulation 
Facility with a UH-1N simulator. The USAF has no simulator for the UH-
1N aircraft, yet most aircraft in the DOD routinely acquires simulators 
to provide initial qualification and continuation--recurring--training 
of crews. There are several reasons why this simulator is necessary:
  Pilots and flight engineers qualifying in the UH-1N are the youngest 
and most experienced in the USAF.
  The UH-1N is one of the oldest helicopters in the USAF inventory and 
may be prone to increased failure of components.
  The simulator creates safety risks allowing trainees to practice 
emergency procedures in the aircraft for the first time.
  In many instances missions are flown single pilot, which requires 
increased knowledge and proficiency that the simulator can provide.
  The UH-1N mission requirements have increased to include the use of 
night vision goggles which is a more demanding initial training 
requirement that can be handled in the simulator.
  On some missions, crews support strategic missile convoy escorts; 
This support demands high qualification and judgment, which the 
simulator can provide.
  Convoy tactics are classified and cannot be practiced in the aircraft 
at Kirtland AFB. The simulator would allow hands-on practice in a 
secure environment.


                   continuation--recurring--training

  UH-1N accidents in the early 1990's drove the USAF to procure 
contract Flight Safety International Bell 212 training for UH-1N crew 
refresher training--not used for initial qualification training.
  Off-site training is expensive and does not meet all the necessary 
requirements because the Bell 212 has some significant systems 
differences.

[[Page S7234]]

  All other USAF helicopters have recurring simulator refresher 
training conducted at Kirtland AFB, NM.
  The simulator maintains standardization of crew force qualification 
and training.
  It updates crew on aircraft changes and other pertinent information.
  It allows pilots to practice classified mission procedures.


                        other important factors

  Simulators are widely accepted in both military and civil aviation as 
critical elements in training programs.
  Simulators cost less to operate than the aircraft.
  Crews can perform high risk emergency procedures and maneuvers in 
simulators.
  Simulators are a force multiplier.
  Typical simulator annual flying hours are 4,000-5,000 hours; 
Helicopters average 400-500 hours per year.
  The UH-1N simulator could be built as a reconfigurable HH-60G for 
little added cost and provide needed training if the UH-1N is retired 
and additional H-60's are acquired as a replacement helicopter.
   Mr. President, this simulator will prove to be a vital asset within 
the U.S. Air Force. I understand my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle have agreed to accept this amendment, so I thank them for their 
support and I yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4395) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4396

    (Purpose: To increase by $3,000,000 the amount authorized to be 
  appropriated for the Air Force for research, development, test, and 
evaluation in order to provide $3,000,000 for the Advanced Distributed 
Simulation connection of the Theater Air Command Control and Simulation 
Facility with the Mission Training Support System facility of the 58th 
                        Special Operations Wing)

  Mr. McCAIN. On behalf of Senator Domenici, I offer an amendment to 
authorize $3 million for the Advanced Distribution Simulation of the 
Theater Air Command Control and Simulation Facility at the 58th Special 
Operations Wing.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4396.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In section 201(3), strike out ``$14,788,356,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$14,791,356,000''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment will authorize $3 million 
to connect the Theater Air Command Control and Simulation Facility with 
the 58th Special Operation Wing. In January, 1995, General Ronald 
Fogleman, Chief of Staff of the USAF announced a ``New Vector for Air 
Force Simulation'' and the ``need to expand our involvement and 
investment in advanced simulation technologies to improve our readiness 
and lower our costs today, and prepare us to dominate the battles of 
tomorrow.''
  Kirtland Air Force Base is uniquely suited to lead the Air Force in 
achieving this new vector by capitalizing on state-of-the-art modeling 
and simulation [M&S] capability available.
  The Chief's vision for Modeling and Simulation [M&S] will provide the 
tools that the USAF needs to more effectively organize, train, equip, 
and jointly employ its forces. In order to meet this vision, 
organizations from the operational, systems development, and testing 
communities must be brought more closely together.
  While there are major initiatives in the DOD to promote the use of 
advanced distributed simulation [ADS] to bring these communities 
together in a cost efficient manner. ADS does not allow for technical 
synergy or the considerable cost savings that would be realized by 
building a joint-use infrastructure that is readily accessible to 
multiple organization.
  Kirtland Air Force Base has the organizations, infrastructure, and 
potential to merge capabilities of the Air Combat Command's Theater Air 
Command and Control Simulation Facility [TACCSF], 58th Special 
Operations Wing [SOW] Simulation Facility, Phillips Laboratory, Air 
Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center [AFOTEC], and Sandia 
National Laboratories into the DOD's most powerful M&S capability.
  TACCSF and the 58th SOW already have the USAF's most capable tactical 
command and control and special operations simulations, respectively. 
These simulations could be easily linked to support each organization's 
diverse Office of the Secretary of Defense [OSD] and Joint service 
customer base.
  This amendment will help to accomplish this objective. I understand 
that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have agreed to accept 
this amendment. I appreciate their support. I believe this is a great 
step in the direction of achieving Chief Fogleman's vision, and I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4396) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4397

 (Purpose: To provide $6,000,000 for the procurement of Bradley TOW 2 
                             Programs sets)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Heflin and Senator Shelby. This amendment would authorize the 
Army to use $6 million of fiscal year funds to buy test program sets 
for the Bradley program. These funds were authorized last year for the 
armored gun system. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Heflin, for 
     himself, and Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 4397.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 113. BRADLEY TOW 2 TEST PROGRAM SETS.

       Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under section 
     101(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 1996 (110 Stat. 204), $6,000,000 is available for the 
     procurement of Bradley TOW 2 Test Program sets.

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, in the fiscal year 1996 Defense 
Authorization Bill, $6 million was authorized for the Armored Gun 
System Test Program Sets. This authorization was approved due to the 
large shortfall in testing software for ASM programs and due the AGS 
system's high priority. Unfortunately, the armored gun system has since 
been terminated. This amendment, therefore, directs the Secetary of the 
Army to make this money available to fund the Bradley TOW 2 Test 
Program Set, a program requirement of the Army.
  The Army has performed a study of the cost and benefits of purchasing 
this test equipment for the Bradley TOW 2 system. It found that 
purchasing this equipment would result in dramatic savings over the 
existing maintenance method. I therefore urge my colleagues to support 
this needed reprogramming.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4397) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4398

 (Purpose: To increase by $10,000,000 the amount available for the Air 
 Force for research, development, test, and evaluation for the Nation 
   Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (Space) 
                         program (PE 0603434F)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of

[[Page S7235]]

Senator Exon and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Exon, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4398.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 223. NATIONAL POLAR-ORBITING OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   SATELLITE SYSTEM.

       (a) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 201(3), $29,024,000 is available for the National 
     Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 
     (Space) program (PE 0603434F).
       (b) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 201(3), $212,895,000 is available for the 
     Intercontinental Ballistic Missile--EMD program (PE 
     0604851F).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4398) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. 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. 4399

   (Purpose: Study on worker protection at the Department of Energy 
                     facility at Miamisburg, Ohio)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Glenn, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4399.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC.   . STUDY ON WORKER PROTECTION AT THE MOUND FACILITY.

       (a) Not later than March 15, 1997, the Secretary of Energy 
     shall report to the defense committees of the Congress 
     regarding the status of projects and programs to improve 
     worker safety and health at the Mound Facility in Miamisburg, 
     Ohio.
       (b) The report shall include the following:
       (1) the status of actions completed in fiscal year 1996;
       (2) the status of actions completed or proposed to be 
     completed in fiscal years 1997 and 1998;
       (3) a description of the fiscal year 1998 budget request 
     for Mound worker safety and health protection; and
       (4) an accounting of expenditures for worker safety and 
     health at Mound by year from fiscal year 1994 through and 
     including fiscal year 1996.

      Worker Safety and Health Protection at DOE's Mound Facility

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I should like to engage the Senator from 
Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, in a colloquy concerning worker health and 
safety protection at the Department of Energy's Mound facility in 
Miamisburg, OH. As the Senator may know, the worker safety and 
radiation program at Mound has had numerous problems. For example, in 
1994, it was discovered that some fluid samples of potentially 
contaminated workers had sat on a storage shelf for 3 years without 
being sent to the lab; furthermore, a huge backlog of samples existed. 
While the backlog has since been reduced and other steps taken to 
improve the situation, it is still clear to me that problems exist with 
the worker radiation protection program. Earlier this year, I met with 
some Mound workers who expressed serious concerns about this situation; 
I have also received numerous letters from workers at the site 
expressing similar concerns. Further, I have been informed that DOE's 
own technical experts believe that substantial upgrades need to be made 
at Mound in this area. For these reasons, I have filed an amendment 
which addresses the specific areas which I believe need to be improved. 
The technical program upgrades addressed by my amendment were developed 
with extensive input from the DOE. However, I understand that there are 
some concerns about the potential impact of my amendment.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I share fully the concerns expressed by the Senator 
from Ohio about the need to ensure worker safety and health programs 
are pursued vigorously at the Mound facility. When we ask workers to 
undertake potentially dangerous decontamination and decommissioning 
work, we need to assure them that all reasonable precautions have been 
taken to protect their safety and health. However, the committee has 
been informed that the Department has statutory authority to pursue 
appropriate worker protection programs at the Mound facility. I believe 
the Senator from Ohio has received assurances from the Department of 
Energy that important upgrades at the Mound facility will be pursued, 
and I commend him for his leadership in obtaining those assurances.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record a letter to me from DOE Under Secretary Tom Grumbly. This 
letter clearly establishes the Department's intent and commitment to 
seriously and forthrightly address worker safety issues at Mound. The 
letter lists a series of discrete program improvements that will be 
taken at the Mound site beginning immediately and continuing through 
1997.
  This list closely tracks the amendment which I have filed.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                The Under Secretary of Energy,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 1996.
     Hon. John Glenn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Glenn: In response to your concerns regarding 
     worker safety at the Department of Energy's Mound Site, I 
     want to assure you that the Department is moving aggressively 
     to address and resolve those concerns. The Department is 
     committed to take the following actions (see attached summary 
     chart):

In FY 1996:
  1. Initiate a contract to complete, by October 1997, the pre-1989 
    radiological dose assessment for workers with a probable dose of 
    greater than.................................................20 rem
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

  2. Procure and initiate implementation of automated personnel 
    contamination monitors with access control system at a cost of$250K
  3. procure and being to install an automated radiological record 
    keeping and data handling software at a cost of...............$260K
  4. Identify and train 6 dedicated radiological control technicians 
    for the purpose of radiologically characterizing the Mount sites 
    at a cost of..................................................$250K
  5. Evaluate the continuous air monitoring program to determine the 
    need for personal air samplers for workers at a cost of........$85K
  6. Evaluate the existing contract bioassay analysis laboratory 
    program against the DOE bioassay accreditation criteria to 
    identify areas for improvement at a cost of....................$30K
  7. Evaluate the existing internal dosimetry does calculation 
    methodologies to validate proper treatment of particle size and 
    chemical form of radioisotopes at a cost of....................$50K
                                                             __________
                                                             
      Total FY 1996 cost..........................................$925K
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

In FY 1997:
  1. complete the pre-1989 radiological dose assessment for workers 
    with a probable dose of greater than 20 rem at a cost of....$3,400K
  2. Complete the procurement and installation of automated 
    personnel contamination monitors with access control system at a 
    cost of.......................................................$490K
  3. Complete installation of the automated radiological record 
    keeping and data handling software at a cost of...............$240K
  4. Complete the radiological characterization of the Mound site at 
    a cost of.....................................................$700K
  5. Complete implementation of enhancements to the continuous air 
    monitoring program, including procurement and implementation of 
    a personal monitoring program, at a cost of...................$120K
  6. complete implementation of a quality control program which 
    meets the DOE bioassay accreditation program criteria for site 
    and contract laboratories as well as establish a DOE validation 
    program at a cost of..........................................$120K
  7. Complete implementation of an internal dosimetry dose 
    calculation methodology that properly treats the particle size 
    and chemical form of radioisotopes at a cost of...............$150K
                                                             __________
                                                             
      Total FY 1997 cost........................................$5,220K

       The cost figures were developed in coordination with the 
     Mound site, but are estimates and therefore not necessarily 
     precise. The expenditures proposed for Fiscal Year 1997 are 
     of course subject to the availability

[[Page S7236]]

     of appropriated funds. We would propose that Fiscal Year 1997 
     funds for these enhancements be made available from the 
     amounts initially requested for the Environmental Management 
     program in a way that gives the Department the most 
     flexibility. We were not able to include funds for these 
     safety upgrades in our Fiscal Year 1997 budget request 
     because the costs had not yet been determined.
       These radiological program improvements will address and 
     resolve both current and legacy issues at Mound and will 
     greatly improve the safety of workers. The Department is 
     committed to making these safety enhancements at the Mound 
     Site.
       We appreciate your continued leadership and hard work to 
     assure the protection of worker health and safety at Mound 
     and all Department of Energy facilities.
           Sincerely,
                                                Thomas P. Grumbly.

SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                               MOUND SITE                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    FY 1996     FY 1997 
                     Project                      Costs ($K)  costs ($K)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pre-1989 Dose Assessments....................         N/A      $3,400
2. Automated Personnel Contamination Monitors                           
 and Access Control.............................        $250         490
3. Automated Record Keeping and Data Handling...         260         240
4. Site Radiological Characterization...........         250         700
5. Air Monitoring Program.......................          85         120
6. Bioassay Quality Control.....................          30         120
7. Internal Dosimetry Dose Calculation                                  
 Methodology....................................          50         150
                                                 -----------------------
      Total for each FY.........................         925       5,220
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. GLENN. These important upgrades should begin at the earliest 
possible opportunity. As a result of Mr. Grumbly's letter and the 
committee's concerns, I will not offer my amendment which would 
specifically authorize funds to ensure that these upgrades take place. 
I remain concerned though that we may be forcing a trade off between 
worker safety and health improvements and the pace of clean up at the 
Mound site.
  Mr. President, I wish to ensure that Congress is kept fully informed 
on the status of the Mound worker safety and health programs.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I fully endorse this substitute amendment and move 
its adoption at this time. I thank my colleague from Ohio for his 
leadership in this important area. I look forward to working with the 
honorable Senator to support him on this issue in conference.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on this 
side, and I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment is cleared. I urge adoption 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4399) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. 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. 4400

   (Purpose: To provide special personnel management authorities for 
     civilian intelligence personnel of the Department of Defense)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Thurmond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4400.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'').
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I propose an amendment that would 
provide new personnel management authorities to the Secretary of 
Defense for managing the civilian personnel within the Department of 
Defense intelligence community.
  Mr. President this legislation is intended to provide the Secretary 
of Defense additional flexibility and the capability to manage and to 
adjust the skill balance within the intelligence community workforce. 
The flexibility and management tools in this proposal will enable the 
Secretary of Defense to adjust the intelligence community workforce to 
changing requirements and technological advances. It is part of a 
larger effort to enhance the effectiveness of the intelligence 
community.
  Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance 
of the chairman and ranking member of the Government Affairs Committee. 
I would not have offered this amendment without their concurrence and 
support. I am pleased to note, for the record, that this is truly a 
bipartisan cooperative effort of our two Committees. The Secretary of 
Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence both recommended and 
support the legislation. I think the amendment will enhance the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the intelligence community. I urge 
adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4400) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4401

   (Purpose: To amend chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, to 
     provide Federal employees who transfer in the interest of the 
    Government more effective and efficient delivery of relocation 
allowances by reducing administrative costs and improving services, and 
                          for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Cohen, for 
     himself and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 4401.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, Senator Levin and I are offering today the 
Travel Reform and Savings Act as an amendment to the DOD authorization 
bill.
  This amendment has bipartisan support and is intended to enable 
Federal agencies to adopt the best of private sector travel management 
practices. It will save over $800 million each year from regulatory and 
statutory changes in Federal travel management.
  This effort originated with two hearings I held this Congress on 
reforming the Federal Government's travel process. At the Subcommittee 
on Oversight of Government Management hearings on the costs associated 
with processing Federal travel vouchers, GAO, DOD, GSA and other 
executive branch agencies agree that the Government's policies focus 
too much on compliance with rigid rules, and that Federal travel 
practices are outmoded and too bureaucratic. There was also agreement 
that the travel process needs to be radically redesigned or 
reengineered and simplified by adopting the best practices of private 
industry. Successfully adopting these practices will save the 
Government an estimated $6 billion during the next 5 years.
  I am encouraged by the efforts of the Department of Defense and other 
agencies in reforming administrative costs connected with temporary 
duty travel. We are beginning to see progress and we should redouble 
our efforts to save the taxpayer money from unnecessary travel overhead 
expenditures.
  The Travel Reform and Savings Act primarily deals with another 
segment of Federal travel, Permanent Change of Station travel, or the 
cost of moving Federal employees to a new duty station. The amendment 
is based on many of the recommendations made by the Joint Financial 
Management Improvement Program, a cooperative effort between the Office 
of Management and Budget, the General Accounting Office, the Department 
of Treasury, and the Office of Personnel Management to improve travel 
and relocation management.
  This amendment proposes to offer alternative methods of reimbursement 
for househunting, and housing transaction expenses. These alternative 
methods would reduce administrative time and paperwork associated with 
auditing vouchers. If found cost effective to do so, this legislation 
would provide authority to pay for property management services, 
transportation of an employee's privately owned motor vehicle within 
the continental

[[Page S7237]]

United States, and home marketing incentives. Furthermore, the 
amendment would authorize payment for limited relocation allowances to 
an employee who is performing an extended assignment, repeal the long-
distance telephone call certification requirement and transfer 
authority to the Administrator of General Services to issue 
implementing regulations.
  The Travel Reform and Savings Act is intended to reduce the 
Government's relocation and travel costs and to ease administrative 
burdens while providing equitable reimbursement to employees. Enactment 
of the legislation will eliminate unnecessary paperwork requirements, 
cut redtape, and result in substantial savings to taxpayers.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Cohen in 
offering this amendment to the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization 
bill.
  The amendment is needed to reduce the Government's relocation and 
travel costs, and to ease administrative burdens while providing 
equitable reimbursement to employees. Enactment of this legislation 
will eliminate unnecessary paperwork requirements and cut red tape, 
improve the treatment of employees who perform official travel by 
creating parity with their private sector counterparts and result in 
substantial savings to taxpayers.
  The amendment represents the product of a multi-agency project team 
established in 1994 by the Joint Financial Management Improvement 
Program [JFMIP], a cooperative undertaking of the Office of Management 
and Budget, the General Accounting Office, the Department of Treasury, 
and the Office of Personnel Management, to develop recommendations to 
improve travel and relocation management. A team representing over two 
dozen organizations from the executive and legislative branches focused 
on identifying and incorporating the best travel practices of both the 
public and private sectors. In a recent hearing before the Subcommittee 
on Oversight of Government Management and the District of Columbia, the 
General Services Administration testified that one of their short-term 
goals to assist Federal agencies in their travel reenigineering efforts 
was to get the necessary legislative changes implemented. The 
legislative changes proposed by the JFMIP are embodied in this 
amendment. GSA estimates that the legislative changes included in this 
amendment will save the Government in excess of $200 million.
  I urge my colleges to support this amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared, and I urge 
its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4401) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4402

(Purpose: To require reporting on compliance of Army test program with 
                    certain statutory requirements)

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

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4402.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title VIII of the bill, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC.  . TEST PROGRAMS FOR MODERNIZATION-THROUGH-SPARES.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Army shall report to the Committee 
     on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National 
     Security of the House of Representatives on the steps he has 
     taken to ensure that each program included in the Army's 
     modernization-through-spares program is conducted in 
     accordance with--
       (1) the competition requirements in section 2304 of Title 
     10;
       (2) the core logistics requirements in section 2464 of 
     title 10; and
       (3) the public-private competition requirements in section 
     2469 of Title 10; and
       (4) requirements relating to contract bundling and spare 
     parts breakout in sections 15(a) and (15(l) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644) and implementing regulations in 
     the Defense FAR Supplement.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Army recently initiated a test program 
for modernization-through-spares, pursuant to which it plans to group 
spare parts and system support contracts together and award a single 
support contract for an entire weapons system. I have been informed 
that it is the Army's intent to award such a contract, for the M109 
howitzer program, on a sole-source basis to the original equipment 
manufacturer. Spare parts contracts for the M109 howitzer program have 
previously been awarded on a competitive basis.
  This information, if true, is disturbing. Current congressional and 
regulatory policy encourages the break out spare parts contracts to 
promote competition. This policy was initiated in the mid-1980's in 
response to a series of spare parts scandals, in which we learned that 
the Pentagon had purchased commonly available commercial items for 
extraordinary prices--such as $435 for a hammer, $243 for a pair of 
pliers, $640 for a toilet seat, and $9,609 for a hexagonal wrench. 
These abuses resulted, in large part, from the decision to purchase the 
items on a sole-source basis from original equipment manufacturers.
  Mr. President, the Army's reported decision to award spare parts and 
support contracts on a sole-source basis to the original equipment 
manufacturer also raises questions of compliance with a number of other 
statutory provisions, including the Competition in Contracting Act, 
requirements for public-private competition prior to contracting out 
decisions, and prohibitions on contracting out core government 
functions. These provisions were all written to protect the taxpayers 
from inappropriate contracting decisions.
  My amendment would require the Secretary of the Army to report to the 
Congress within 60 days on the steps that he is taking to ensure that 
the proposed test program is conducted in accordance with these 
requirements. As one of the authors of the Competition in Contracting 
Act and the spare parts reforms, I intend to closely scrutinize the 
rationale offered by the Army for any decision to award a sole-source 
contract to the original equipment manufacturer under this test 
program.
  Mr. NUNN. I believe this amendment has been cleared on the other 
side, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. McCAIN. I urge adoption. It has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4402) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4403

  (Purpose: To authorize the construction of a fuel farm, phase I, at 
                   Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Stevens, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4403.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the table in section 2401(a), strike out ``$18,000,000'' 
     in the amount column in the item relating to Elmendorf Air 
     Force Base, Alaska, and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$21,000,000''.
       Strike out the amount set forth as the total amount at the 
     end of the table in section 2401(a) and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$530,590,000''.
       In section 2406(a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
     strike out ``$3,421,366,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$3,424,366,000''.
       In section 2406(a)(1), strike out ``$364,487,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$367,487,000''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe the amendment has been cleared 
on both sides.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, it has been. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4403) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S7238]]

                           Amendment No. 4404

(Purpose: To authorize $10,000,000 for the construction, Phase I, of a 
 national range control center, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4404.


  The amendment is as follows:
       In the table in section 2101(a), insert after the item 
     relating to Fort Polk, Louisiana, the following new item:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico.........................  White Sands Missile     $10,000,000
                                      Range.                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Strike out the amount set forth as the total amount at the 
     end of the table in section 2101(a) and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$356,450,000''.
       In section 2104(a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
     strike out ``$1,894,297,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$1,904,297,000''.
       In section 2104(a)(1), strike out ``$356,450,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$366,450,000''.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this has been cleared, and I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, The amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4404) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4405

  (Purpose: To authorize $8,900,000 for construction at the Undersea 
   Weapons Systems Laboratory at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, 
                Newport Division, Newport, Rhode Island)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Chafee, for 
     himself and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 4405.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the table in section 2201(a), insert after the item 
     relating to Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina, 
     the following new item:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island.......................  Naval Undersea           $8,900,000
                                      Warfare Center.                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Strike out the amount set forth as the total amount at the 
     end of the table in section 2201(a) and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$515,952,000''.
       In section 2205(a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
     strike out ``$2,040,093,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$2,048,993,000''.
       In section 2205(a)(1), strike out ``$507,052,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$515,952,000''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, my amendment, which has been cleared by 
both sides, authorizes $8.9 million for an Undersea Weapons Systems 
Laboratory at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center [NUWC], headquartered 
in Newport, RI.
  For many years, NUWC has maintained a well-deserved reputation as a 
center of excellence in submarine technology. It was certainly no 
accident that during the 1991, 1993, and 1995 base closure rounds, the 
Navy consolidated significant personnel and functions into Newport, 
while establishing the site as headquarters for one of its four R&D 
superlabs.
  Unfortunately, though, NUWC's existing laboratory facilities 
dedicated to developing emerging technologies are badly outdated and 
cost-ineffective. They are housed in WWII vintage, thick walled 
concrete buildings not designed for controlled environments, 
specialized power and other modern necessities.
  In order to remedy this shortfall and maintain U.S. strategic 
advantage in emerging undersea technologies, NUWC has established a 
requirement for an Undersea Weapons Systems Laboratory. This facility 
will enable NUWC to develop and implement affordable state-of-the-art 
technologies, and to design and prototype futuristic small tactical 
undersea vehicles. It also boasts an extraordinary pay back period of 
2.4 years, which will be realized through the use of multidimensional 
modeling and simulation laboratories to replace costly in-water testing 
of underwater weapons systems.
  Mr. President, I am convinced that the continued and increasing 
threat from submarine forces abroad should be a top U.S. national 
security concern. It has recently been reported that by 2005, 17 
percent of the world's projected 410 submarines will have state-of-the-
art technology, compared to just 8 percent today. Exploration and 
development of the many emerging technologies in this field, a goal my 
amendment seeks to achieve, will keep our undersea fleet of the future 
equipped with the most capable weapons systems, thereby deterring any 
potential near-term aggressor.
  I want to express my deep appreciation to Senator Warner for his 
support for this amendment. Its enactment into law will help take our 
submarine force into the 21st century as capable as ever.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared. I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4405) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendments just accepted by the Senate 
add $21.9 million to the bill for three unrequested, low priority 
military construction projects, in addition to the $600 million already 
provided by the committee. These amendments did not pass the scrutiny 
of the Senate Armed Services Committee during its markup process, and 
the Senate should not now act to add millions of dollars for more 
military construction addons.
  I ask that the record clearly reflect that I am strongly opposed to 
each of these amendments.
  The three projects for which funding was added by these amendments 
are: $8.9 million for an undersea warfare laboratory in Rhode Island, 
$10 million for a command and control center at White Sands Missile 
Range in New Mexico, and $3 million for a fuel depot at Elmendorf Air 
Force Base in Alaska.
  I appreciate the fact that every effort is being made to adhere to 
some credible criteria in selecting the projects for addons in this 
bill. But my objection, in principle, to adding funds for unrequested 
military construction projects remains the same.
  Since 1990, the Congress has added more than $6 billion to the 
military construction accounts. This bill now adds more than $600 
million for unrequested projects at specific locations in various 
States. At the same time, the overall defense budget has declined by 
more than 40 percent, despite our recent efforts to increase funding.
  During the SASC markup, the Readiness Subcommittee recommended a 
plus-up of $100 million for high-priority housing projects. But the 
subcommittee allowed the Department of Defense to determine the 
allocation of these projects by military priority, not by location in a 
powerful Senators' State. Senator Glenn and I both voted against the 
addition of another $600 million in unrequested mil con projects when 
the amendment was offered in our full committee markup. Not 
surprisingly, we lost that vote.
  Again, I am somewhat gratified to learn that the close scrutiny 
focused on military construction pork has at least forced a degree of 
control on the process. Most of the projects added by the Armed 
Services Committee meet four of the five criteria stated in the sense 
of the Senate language: Mission essential; not inconsistent with BRAC; 
in the FYDP; and, executable in fiscal year 1997.
  Mr. President, this bill already includes 25 added projects do not 
meet at least one of these criteria. However, 11 of these are quality 
of life improvements, and the balance received only planning and design 
funding. But none of these projects in the bill meet the fifth 
criterion--offset by a reduction in some other defense account.
  Let's look at the priority of the projects already added by the 
committee for military construction.
  Of the total of 115 added projects, 72 were planned for the year 2000 
or later. In fact, 14 of these projects were not even included in the 
FYDP.

[[Page S7239]]

  Of the $600 million added for unrequested projects, almost $350 
million was added for these 72 projects planned for the next century.
  Surely, projects planned for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, or later 
are not as vital to the services as those that are planned to be 
included in next year's defense budget. Why didn't we focus on the 
fiscal year 1998 projects? Or the fiscal year 1999 projects? Instead, 
we are reaching 4 years out in the FYDP, into the next century, to find 
29 projects that are planned in the States of Members of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Let's be realistic. This bill is $1.7 billion above the defense 
budget target set in the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution. That means 
we will have to cut out some of the programs added in this bill when we 
get to conference with the House. Will military construction be cut? I 
don't think so. Instead, we will probably end up cutting some of the 
high-priority adds for much-needed modernization equipment that will 
enable our troops to fight and win in future conflicts.
  Mr. President, I am tired of seeing us acquiesce to a practice which 
only feeds on itself. Until we instill some discipline in our own 
markup process--by resisting the temptation to add money simply because 
it serves our constituents--we cannot expect the Department of Defense 
to exercise discipline in resisting efforts to spend defense dollars on 
unnecessary, nondefense projects.
  We have made progress in reducing the total amount of pork barrelling 
in the defense budget. Last year, about $4 billion of the total $7 
billion added to the defense budget was wasted on pork barrel projects, 
like new attack submarines, research project earmarks, medical 
education programs, and, of course, military construction add-ons. This 
year, we are wasting only $2 billion.

  But $2 billion is a lot of taxpayer dollars to waste. How do we 
explain to the American people why we need to spend $11 billion more 
for defense this year, when we are spending $2 billion for projects 
that do little or nothing to contribute to our Nation's security?
  Mr. President, I intend to continue to expose these unnecessary 
addons for military construction projects to public scrutiny--the only 
way I know to fight this egregious pork-barrel spending. And I plead 
with my colleagues, for the sake of ensuring public support for 
adequate defense spending now and in the future, let's stop the pork-
barrelling now.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, a moment ago the Senate adopted three 
amendments to add additional funds to the military construction budget 
to fund an undersea weapons system lab in Newport, RI; phase I of a 
national range command and control center at White Sands Missile Range, 
NM; and phase I of a fuel farm at Elmendorf AFB, AK. I did not ask for 
a rollcall vote on these amendments, nor did I want to tie the Senate 
up with debate on these amendments. However, I would like to voice my 
opposition to these amendments. I am opposing these amendments because 
we in the Congress continue to add millions and millions of dollars to 
the defense budget in order to fund projects which are not requested by 
our military leaders.
  As I understand it, these projects do meet the criteria which the 
chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, Senator McCain, and I 
established several years ago. I am gratified that the Senate is 
exercising a degree of discipline by requiring that these military 
construction projects meet certain minimal criteria, such as whether a 
project is in a service's future years defense plan or whether a 
project is mission essential. I don't think that is too much to ask, 
Mr. President. Furthermore, I do not agree that just because a project 
meets these criteria we should fund each and every one of them. We have 
to exercise discipline in limiting the number of unrequested projects 
added each year, just as the Pentagon must learn to request appropriate 
levels of funding for the services' construction accounts. If our 
military leaders truly need these projects, then they should ask for 
them in the annual budget request.
  On June 19, during the Senate's consideration of Senator McCain's 
amendment to reduce the fiscal year 1997 military construction 
authorization by $600 million, I spoke at length about my position 
concerning construction adds. So, I will not belabor the point here. I 
will point out that it is my intention to continue to work with the 
chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee to reverse the practice of 
adding millions of dollars to the budget for unrequested projects.


                           Amendment No. 4406

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Smith 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4406.

  The amendment is as follows:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING USS LCS 102 (LSSL 
                   102).

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense 
     should use existing authorities in law to seek the 
     expeditious return upon completion of service, of the former 
     USS LCS 102 (LSSL 102) from the Government of Thailand in 
     order for the ship to be transferred to the United States 
     Shipbuilding Museum in Quincy, Massachusetts.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, during the past 5 years our Nation 
commemorated the 50th anniversary of a series historic World War II 
events. These ceremonies highlighted the enormous valor, sacrifice, and 
honorable service of our Nation's veterans. They also showcased some of 
the unique aircraft, ground vehicles, and naval vessels that helped 
turn the tide of war in Europe and the pacific.
  Many of these extraordinary combatants have long since been retired. 
Others have been converted to museums. Still others are in use with 
foreign military services through agreement with our Government.
  Recently, it was brought to my attention that one specific class of 
Navy ship, the LCS class, has only one surviving ship left in 
existence: The LSC-102. The LCS' were shallow draft gunboats designed 
and built to provide a high rate of firepower for marines going ashore. 
The Navy built 130 of them, outfitted with 20mm and 40mm guns as well 
as rocket launchers for beach bombardment. They saw extensive action in 
New Guinea, Borneo, Iwo Jima, the Phillippines and Okinawa. Twenty-six 
were sunk or damaged in combat operations.
  As I said, the LCS-102 is the last ship in its class in existence. It 
is in service with the Royal Navy of Thailand through agreement with 
our Government. The Thai Navy has indicated that they plan to keep the 
ship in service through at least the year 2000.
  Mr. President, the LCS class has a distinguished history. Our former 
colleague Senator John Tower served in combat as a boatswain's mate on 
an LCS in World War II. Former Navy Secretary Bill Middendorf also 
served aboard an LCS. And John F. Lehman, Sr., the father of Chris 
Lehman and former Secretary of Navy John Lehman, Jr. commanded the LCS-
18 and was awarded the Bronze Star for service during the Okinawa 
campaign.
  The National Association of USS LCS (L) 1-130 has for several years 
sought to return the LCS-102 to the United States so that it can become 
an exhibit at the U.S. Navy shipbuilding museum at Quincy, MA. Time is 
running out for thousands of sailors who served aboard LCS's during 
World War II and want to see this last-of-its-class ship brought home 
to port.
  The amendment that I am offering today would express the sense of the 
Senate that the Secretary of Defense should use existing authorities in 
law to seek the expeditious return of the LCS-102 from the Government 
of Thailand in order for the ship to be transferred to the United 
States shipbuilding museum. The amendment does not require any specific 
action or force the return of the ship. Rather, it convey's 
congressional interest in working with our friends in Thailand to 
return this last of its kind ship for exhibition in the United States.

  Mr. President, I understand there are concerns over who actually 
holds title to the vessel, how much longer the royal Thai navy may want 
to hold onto it, and who would pay the bill to return it to the United 
States.
  According to the Navy, the LCS-102 is now known as the LSSL 102, 
having been transferred to Thailand under the old military assistance 
program. There is revisionary right retained by the United States 
providing that when Thailand no longer needs the vessel for

[[Page S7240]]

intended purposes it is to notify the United States.
  It is entirely possible that Thailand may insist upon some 
alternative compensation if they agree to give back the ship. While 
this amendment does not address that issue, it is intended that the 
Secretary of Defense would exercise his existing authority, in 
consultation with the State Department, to explore various options and 
consummate such an arrangement, if appropriate.
  Let me make clear that I do not propose using Defense Department 
funds to return this vessel to the United Sates and transport it to 
Quincy, MA. In my view, this is something that should be paid for 
through private contributions. I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
from William M. MacMullen, the executive director of the shipbuilding 
museum, committing to raise the necessary funds for such an effort, be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1)
  Mr. SMITH. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this 
amendment. It is fitting that we pay tribute to the collection of 
American warriors, including our former colleague John Tower, who 
served aboard this unique class of combatants. Let us bring LCS-102 
back stateside, to permanent home port in Quincy, MA, so that future 
generations can better understand and appreciate its legacy of service.
  Mr. President, I understand that this amendment has been cleared on 
both sides and, if that is the case, I urge adoption of the amendment.

                               Exhibit 1

                                   U.S. Naval Shipbuilding Museum,


                       Massachusetts Military Research Center,

                                        June 19, 1996, Quincy, MA.
     Hon. Robert C. Smith,
     U.S. Senate, Seapower Subcommittee, Senate Armed Services 
         Committee, Washington, D.C.
       Dear Senator Smith: I am writing to provide you my 
     assurance that the United States Naval Shipbuilding Museum 
     here in Quincy, Massachusetts is prepared to take the former 
     LCS-102 and give her a home at the Museum.
       We are committed to raise the necessary funds working with 
     the LCS Association to maintain the vessel and prepare her 
     for use as an exhibit. We have the room here and we think 
     that the addition of one of the ``fightingest'' ships in the 
     World War Two Navy would be a fine addition to our Museum. 
     Many LCSs were actually built here in Quincy during World War 
     Two and it would be fitting to have one of those, (in fact, 
     the only ship of its class left in the world), ships back 
     here in Quincy at our Museum.
  It is my understanding that there is a possibility that the Congress 
may soon endorse the idea of bringing the last LCS home to serve as a 
museum piece. Many Navy veterans from New Hampshire would be pleased to 
have the ship so close to home. I urge you to support this initiative 
to bring this ship to Quincy, Massachusetts, and so honor the tens of 
thousands of sailors who served on amphibious ships during World War 
Two.
           Respectfully,
                                         William M. MacMullen, Jr.
                                            Exec. Director, USNSM.

  Mr. McCAIN. This has been cleared.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared, and I urge 
its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4406) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4407

 (Purpose: To specify certain matters to be considered by the Chairman 
  of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the next assessment of the current 
    missions, responsibilities, and force structure of the unified 
                          combatant commands)

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

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Robb, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 4407.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 908. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN NEXT ASSESSMENT OF 
                   CURRENT MISSIONS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND FORCE 
                   STRUCTURE OF THE UNIFIED COMBATANT COMMANDS.

       The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall consider, 
     as part of the next periodic review of the missions, 
     responsibilities, and force structure of the unified 
     combatant commands under section 161(b) of title 10, United 
     States Code, the following matters:
       (1) For each Area of Responsibility of the regional unified 
     combatant commands--
       (A) the foremost threats to United States or allied 
     security in the near- and long-term;
       (B) the total area of ocean and total area of land 
     encompassed; and
       (C) the number of countries and total population 
     encompassed.
       (2) Whether any one Area of Responsibility encompassed a 
     disproportionately high or low share of threats, mission 
     requirements, land or ocean area, number of countries, or 
     population.
       (3) The other factors used to establish the current Areas 
     of Responsibility.
       (4) Whether any of the factors addressed under paragraph 
     (3) account for any apparent imbalances indicated in the 
     response to paragraph (2).
       (5) Whether, in light of recent reductions in the overall 
     force structure of the Armed Forces, the United States could 
     better execute its warfighting plans with fewer unified 
     combatant commands, including--
       (A) a total of five or fewer commands, all of which are 
     regional;
       (B) an eastward-oriented command, a westward-oriented 
     command, and a central command; or
       (C) a purely functional command structure, involving (for 
     example) a first theater command, a second theater command, a 
     logistics command, a special contingencies command, and a 
     strategic command.
       (6) Whether any missions, staff, facilities, equipment, 
     training programs, or other assets or activities of the 
     unified combatant commands are redundant.
       (7) Whether warfighting requirements are adequate to 
     justify the current functional commands.
       (8) Whether the exclusion of Russia from a specific Area of 
     Responsibility present any difficulties for the unified 
     combatant commands with respect to contingency planning for 
     the area and its periphery.
       (9) Whether the current geographic boundary between the 
     Central Command and the European Command through the Middle 
     East could create command conflicts in the context of 
     fighting a major regional conflict in the Middle East.

  Mr. McCAIN. The amendment has been cleared. I urge that the Senate 
adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4407) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. 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. 4408

  (Purpose: To make available $7,000,000 for research and development 
        relating to seamless high off-chip connectivity (SHOCC))

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

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4408.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 223. SEAMLESS HIGH OFF-CHIP CONNECTIVITY.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by this Act, 
     $7,000,000 shall be available for the Defense Advanced 
     Research Projects Agency for research and development on 
     Seamless High Off-Chip Connectivity (SHOCC) under the 
     materials and electronic technology program (PE 0602712E).

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency [DARPA] has a continuing program of research and development for 
advanced electronics and materials. One of the most promising elements 
of this program is called seamless high off-chip connectivity, or SHOCC 
for short. The SHOCC program offers the potential to dramatically 
reduce the cost of producing integrated circuits while increasing their 
performance considerably. This would be important to our information-
age military forces, as well as to our commercial electronics industry.
  One of the problems faced by the electronics industry, for both 
military and civilian applications, is the increased cost of producing 
high performance integrated circuits. While we have made many dramatic 
improvements in

[[Page S7241]]

the chips we produce, there is a point at which increasing their 
performance to the next logical level is cost-prohibitive. We are 
approaching that point quickly.
  Additionally, the wiring that connects the circuits together on the 
circuit boards is incapable of transferring all the massive amounts of 
data that the chips can handle. Consequently, there is an electron 
traffic jam and bottleneck when the data leaves a chip and goes on to 
its next destination. It is like an eight-lane information highway 
suddenly becoming a one-lane dirt road; you can be sure there will be 
real show-downs. So we need to increase the density of the off-chip 
wiring.
  The SHOCC program run by DARPA seeks to provide a new way of 
fabricating high performance integrated circuits so they are lower 
cost, have better wiring to permit all the data to flow between and 
among all the circuits--the information capacity known as connectivity, 
and much greater performance. Such circuits would have tremendous 
importance for our military, which is increasing its reliance on 
information technology and digitization. Our military needs improved 
electronic technology at lower cost, and that is what the SHOCC program 
is all about.
  This amendment authorizes $7 million for DARPA to continue this 
ground-breaking research. There is an offset for the funding of this 
program.
  Mr. McCAIN. The amendment has been cleared, and I urge adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4408) was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. 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. 4409

   (Purpose: To amend section 346 (relating to authority to transfer 
  contaminated Federal property before completion of required Federal 
                                actions)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Smith, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4409.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 90, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through page 91, line 17, and insert the following:

     SEC. 346. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER CONTAMINATED FEDERAL PROPERTY 
                   BEFORE COMPLETION OF REQUIRED REMEDIAL ACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 120(h)(3) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by redesigning subparagraph (A) as clause (i) and 
     clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of that subparagraph as 
     subclauses (I), (II), (III), respectively;
       (2) by striking ``After the last day'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--After the last day'';
       (3) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as clause (ii) and 
     clauses (i) and (ii) of that subparagraph as subclauses (I) 
     and (II), respectively;
       (4) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as clause (iii);
       (5) by striking ``For purposes of subparagraph (B)(i)'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) Covenant requirements.--For purposes of subparagraphs 
     (A)(ii)(I) and (C)(iii)'';
       (6) in subparagraph (B), as designated by paragraph (5), by 
     striking ``subparagraph (B)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``subparagraph (A)(ii)''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Deferral.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Administrator (in the case of real 
     property at a Federal facility that is listed on the National 
     Priorities List) or the Governor of the State in which the 
     facility is located (in the case of real property at a 
     Federal facility not listed on the National Priorities List) 
     may defer the requirement of subparagraph (A)(ii)(I) with 
     respect to the property if the Administrator or the Governor, 
     as the case may be, determines that--
       ``(I) the property is suitable for transfer for the use 
     intended by the transferee;
       ``(II) the deed or other agreement proposed to govern the 
     transfer between the United States and the transferee of the 
     property contains the assurances set forth in clause (ii); 
     and
       ``(III) the Federal agency requesting deferral has provided 
     notice, by publication in a newspaper of general circulation 
     in the vicinity of the property, of the proposed transfer and 
     of the opportunity for the public to submit, within a period 
     of not less than 30 days after the date of the notice, 
     written comments on the finding by the agency that the 
     property is suitable for transfer.
       ``(ii) Remedial action assurances.--With regard to a 
     release or threatened release of a hazardous substance for 
     which a Federal agency is potentially responsible under this 
     section, the deed or other agreement proposed to govern the 
     transfer shall contain assurances that--
       ``(I) provide for any necessary restrictions to ensure the 
     protection of human health and the environment;
       ``(II) provide that there will be restrictions on use 
     necessary to ensure required remedial investigations, 
     remedial actions, and oversight activities will not be 
     disrupted;
       ``(III) provide that all appropriate remedial action will 
     be taken and identify the schedules for investigation and 
     completion of all necessary remedial action; and
       ``(IV) provide that the Federal agency responsible for the 
     property subject to transfer will submit a budget request to 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget that 
     adequately addresses schedules, subject to congressional 
     authorizations and appropriations.
       ``(iii) Warranty.--When all remedial action necessary to 
     protect human health and the environment with respect to any 
     substance remaining on the property on the date of transfer 
     has been taken, the United States shall execute and deliver 
     to the transferee an appropriate document containing a 
     warranty that all such remedial action has been completed, 
     and the making of the warranty shall be considered to satisfy 
     the requirement of subparagraph (A)(ii)(I).
       ``(iv) Federal responsibility.--A deferral under this 
     subparagraph shall not increase, diminish, or affect in any 
     manner any rights or obligations of a Federal agency with 
     respect to a property transferred under this subparagraph.''.
       (b) Continued Application of State Law.--The first sentence 
     of section 120(a)(4) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9620(a)(4)) is amended by inserting ``or facilities that are 
     the subject of a deferral under subsection (h)(3)(C)'' after 
     ``United States''.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, during the Armed Services Committee 
consideration of S. 1745, Senator McCain and I introduced language to 
amend section 120(h)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response 
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 [CERCLA] otherwise known as 
Superfund--to allow for the sale of contaminated properties at former 
Federal facilities prior to the completion of hazardous waste remedial 
action. Although the Federal Government would remain responsible for 
the cost of cleaning up the existing contamination, the early transfer 
of these properties would allow for the expedited redevelopment of 
excess Federal properties, such as those closed under the Base Closure 
and Realignment Act, without having to wait for the completion of the 
cleanup activities. This language, which was developed with the 
assistance of the Department of Defense, was cleared as official 
administration policy by the Office of Management and Budget.
  In addition to section 346 being supported by the administration, we 
have been contacted by a number of States that believe that it is 
important that the transfer process be expedited so that necessary 
redevelopment takes place as soon as possible. As a result of my close 
involvement with efforts to redevelop Pease Air Force Base, as well as 
my chairmanship of the Senate Superfund Subcommittee, I am aware of 
instances where potential land redevelopment efforts were hindered 
because of the Federal agency's inability to provide potential 
purchasers with a fee simple transaction prior to the time the property 
was cleaned up. By making this necessary revision to CERCLA 120(h), I 
believe that we will avoid needless complications in getting these 
properties into beneficial economic reuse, yet at the same time, ensure 
that they will be appropriately cleaned up in a timely manner.
  Recently, I have received letters from a few State attorneys general 
expressing concerns about section 346, and seeking assurances that 
these properties will be expeditiously cleaned up. The attorneys 
general were primarily concerned that we ensure that all appropriate 
remedial action is taken at thee sites in a timely manner, that 
schedules for completion of the cleanup be identified, and that 
existing agreements, including tri-party agreements remain enforceable. 
In response to these concerns, my staff on the Senate Environment and 
Public Works Committee have been working with the staffs of Senators 
Baucus, Lautenberg,  and Chafee, as well as the staff on the Armed 
Services Committee and

[[Page S7242]]

representatives of the military services, to address the concerns 
raised by the attorneys general.
  The amendment that I am offering today would accomplish a number of 
goals. First, it would ensure that those facilities that are 
transferred prior to their cleanup would receive the same environmental 
protections as those facilities currently cleaned up under section 
120(h). Similar to current law, the deed transferring the property 
would be required to contain assurances that all appropriate remedial 
action will be taken at the property, as well as identify schedules for 
the investigation and completion of all necessary remedial actions. In 
addition, the current language in section 120(h) would continue to hold 
the Government responsible for any additional cleanup found to be 
necessary after the date of the transfer.
  Second, this amendment specifically states that the Federal 
obligations for these facilities would not be diminished or affected as 
a result of these transfers. The functional effect is that contractual 
obligations, such as tri-party agreements, that have been entered into 
by the Federal Government prior to the transfer, would remain 
unaffected by this change.
  Third, this amendment would ensure that State laws, including State 
environmental laws, will continue to apply to facilities that are 
transferred as a result of this section. Thus, in no way does this 
amendment affect the ability of States to fully enforce their State 
environmental cleanup requirements.
  Mr. President, my staff has been contacted by the representatives of 
a number of Governor's who have told me that they strongly support the 
existing language in section 346. However, I am willing to modify my 
language to address the concerns raised by attorneys general. As a 
result of these changes, I believe that this amendment will not only 
clarify our intention to allow these pre-cleanup transfers, but it will 
also ensure that these cleanups will take place in a prompt fashion.
  I urge the support of my colleagues for this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in a brief colloquy regarding 
the Smith amendment to section 346 of the bill. Let me also say that I 
am pleased that the managers have agreed to adopt the Smith amendment, 
which I believe improves the section in question.
  The original intent of section 346 is worthy. We should make every 
effort to expedite the transfer of Federal property when it is needed 
for local economic development or similar time sensitive opportunities. 
However, upon reading the provision carefully, I became concerned that 
providing the authority to transfer contaminated Federal property 
before completion of required remedial actions could potentially muddle 
the Federal Government's responsibility for cleaning up this 
contamination.
  I would like to ask the Senator from South Carolina whether anything 
in the Smith amendment to section 346 in any way diminishes the Federal 
Government's obligation to remediate contamination for which it or its 
agencies are responsible?
  Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his interest. 
Nothing in the amended section 346 reduces or otherwise changes the 
responsibility of the United States for cleaning up contamination at 
its facilities.
  Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate that clarification from the chairman. As he 
and my colleagues may know, I have long been concerned that the 
Department of Defense [DOD] and Congress should allocate sufficient 
funds for the purposes of cleaning up closed and closing bases so that 
they may be reused to the benefit of the local and State economies. In 
fact, I believe that these former military facilities deserve priority 
attention because of the severe economic impact that closing bases can 
have on communities.
  I am thankful that the amendment reflects these concerns and requires 
cleanup schedules to be prepared and adequate budget requests to be 
made as part of the necessary assurances prior to any transfer. 
However, the amendment still covers the entire universe of potentially 
transferrable Federal facilities and allows transfer prior to cleanup. 
Conceivably, this could result in less attention by DOD and other 
agencies to the remediation of these facilities. Could the chairman 
reassure me that the transfer of former military properties and other 
Federal facilities pursuant to the revised section 346 will not affect 
the priority DOD gives to their cleanup?
  Mr. THURMOND. Let me reassure the Senator from Michigan that section 
346 as amended by the Smith amendment does not affect or alter in any 
way the obligation of or the need for DOD to clean up the properties it 
has contaminated, particularly at closed or closing facilities. In 
fact, as the Senator indicated, all agencies proposing to transfer 
property must identify specific cleanup schedules and submit budget 
requests that adequately address those schedules for remedial action.
  Mr. LEVIN. The chairman of the committee and his staff have been most 
helpful in arriving at these improvements to section 346. I appreciate 
his assistance.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, though the Smith amendment to section 346 
goes a long way toward resolving the majority of my concerns, and the 
reassurances provided by the chairman of the Senate Armed Services have 
been extremely helpful, there are still some issues that need to be 
considered before Congress proceeds with this kind of change in 
permanent law.
  Though I understand from DOD staff that the Department does not 
intend to use this new authority widely or without significant caution, 
an argument can be made that a change of this magnitude, affecting all 
Federal facilities, should be considered in the context of 
comprehensive reform of the Superfund law, and the Governmental Affairs 
Committee should probably have the opportunity to consider the change 
in the process for disposition of Federal property.
  Further, my office has been contacted by the Attorney General of 
Michigan regarding his concerns about the impact of section 346 in the 
Committee-reported version of S. 1745. These concerns appear to be 
shared by many other State Attorneys General around the country. Some 
of these concerns are addressed by the changes that the Smith amendment 
makes in section 346. But, I want my colleagues to know that this 
provision is not a simple matter and could have far-reaching 
consequences. I hope the conferees will carefully consider the need for 
this new authority and the possible outcomes of its exercise.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the attorney general of 
Michigan to me be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                State of Michigan,


                               Department of Attorney General,

                                       Lansing, MI, June 13, 1996.
     Re: S. 1745--Proposed amendment of section 120(h)(3) of 
         CERCLA.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: I am writing to express my opposition 
     to the change proposed by S. 1745, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, to a most important 
     provision of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Section 120(h)(3) of 
     CERCLA has clearly and unequivocally placed the burden of 
     cleaning up contaminated federal property on federal 
     agencies. This is sound public policy for a number of 
     reasons, not the least of which is that since the property 
     was contaminated by the federal government, is should set an 
     example for the rest of the nation by accepting its 
     responsibility for damages its agencies have done to the 
     environment. It is a policy that has worked because of the 
     mandates of section 120(h)(3) that all remedial action 
     necessary be conducted before the site is transferred, and 
     that any transfer contain a covenant that any additional 
     remedial action found to be necessary after the transfer will 
     be conducted by the United States.
       The proposed change to section 120(h)(3) will permit the 
     transfer of contaminated federal land before all remedial 
     action is completed, and it will allow federal agencies to 
     transfer their liability for the facility to other parties 
     such as states, local governments and private persons. I urge 
     you to strongly oppose this change in its present form.
       In many instances, the initial transferee of federal 
     facilities may be a state or local government which accepts 
     title in order to convey to a private party for economic 
     development. Forcing the state or local agency to make a 
     choice between accepting the land and the liability of the 
     United State, or losing the chance for economic redevelopment 
     of the site by declining to accept such liability, is 
     unfair and contrary to the intent of

[[Page S7243]]

     section 120(h)(3). Yet this is precisely the choice that 
     will be presented in many instances, and I fear that the 
     acute need for redevelopment and the ability to pass the 
     liability on to the private developer will force state and 
     local agencies to absolve the United States of liability 
     for the harm it has caused, even though the private 
     redeveloper's promise to accept the liability is often of 
     little or no value. In such cases, the environmental 
     liability of the United States will be unfairly passed to 
     state and local governments.
       Allowing federal agencies to transfer their environmental 
     liability to others in the name of economic development will 
     increase the number of orphan sites of contamination when the 
     transferee is either unwilling, or more likely unable, to 
     fulfill the ``assurance'' it gave to remediate the federal 
     facility. Facilitating civilian redevelopment of federal 
     facilities is a worthwhile endeavor, but not at the expense 
     of the environment.
       First and foremost, the federal government must keep the 
     promise of remediating all contaminated federal facilities. 
     The United States can fulfill this obligation, and promote 
     redevelopment of federal facilities at the same time under 
     the current section 120(h)(3) of CERCLA. In those rare 
     instances where redevelopment is thwarted by the inability to 
     convey title to the land to the redeveloper, CERCLA must 
     continue to make clear that the United States will take any 
     corrective action necessary after transferring the land.
       It is my position that an amendment to section 120(h)(3) of 
     CERCLA such as that proposed by S. 1745 should not be passed 
     without clear mandates contained therein that the United 
     States may not transfer its liability to any other party or 
     person, and that the United States must convenant to take all 
     remedial action necessary in the event the transferee fails 
     to do so.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  Frank J. Kelley,
                                                 Attorney General.

  Mr. BAUCUS. I would like to ask the sponsor of the amendment, Senator 
Smith, to clarify a couple of points I have on the amendment allowing 
the transfer of Federal facilities. First, let me say that transferring 
Federal facilities to private parties as quickly as we can so they can 
be put to productive use is desirable. But we must not transfer 
property if doing so would compromise protection of human health and 
the environment. And we must ensure that when we do transfer Federal 
sites before they are cleaned up, we don't forget about them. We must 
make sure that the Federal Government cleans up these sites as quickly 
as it would if the Government still owned the property. At the same 
time, communities do not want to wait for years while interested 
parties study the extent of contamination and argue over remedies. So 
to speed up the transfer of contaminated land at these Federal sites, 
this amendment will allow the Federal Government to transfer property 
to private parties before the remedy is completed. While I support the 
amendment, I do so with some reservations and ask that my concerns be 
addressed in conference. I want to make sure that if we allow the 
Federal Government to transfer contaminated property before the site is 
cleaned up we do so with the appropriate safeguards necessary to ensure 
that the States and public is not saddled with the cleanup of former 
Federal sites. I want to make sure that allowing Federal sites to be 
transferred before the site is cleaned up will not affect the Federal 
Government's obligations to cleanup its sites. At many sites, the 
Federal Government has entered into triparty agreements with the States 
and Federal regulators. These triparty agreements should not be 
compromised by transfers. Is it the understanding of the Senator that 
tri-party agreements will not be affected by the amendment?
  Mr. SMITH. It is my understanding that the triparty agreements will 
remain unaffected by this amendment. We do not intend that this 
provision effect the pace of cleanups or shift costs from the Federal 
Government to the States. More specifically, in the paragraph setting 
forth the condition that must be met before a transfer can occur, 
clause (iv) states that a deferral shall not increase, diminish, or 
affect in any manner any rights or obligations of a Federal agency with 
respect to a property transferred.
  Mr. BAUCUS. So it is the intent of the Senator that by using the 
phrase ``rights or obligations'' in clause (iv) is to cover any 
existing contractual obligation entered into by the Federal agency?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Would the Senator agree that triparty agreements are one 
category of contractual obligation?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Second, I understand that the amendment would allow 
transfers of Federal facilities to occur before remedial action is in 
place, provided that the transfer contains several assurances. These 
assurances would, among other things, assure that all appropriate 
remedial action will be taken and that the schedules for investigation 
and completion of all necessary remedial actions will be identified. Is 
the intent of this language to ensure that the cleanup at transferred 
sites will proceed according to the schedule identified in a deed or 
other agreement proposed to govern the transfer?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I am pleased that the intent of this language is for the 
cleanup to proceed according to the schedule in the deed or other 
agreement proposed to govern the transfer. But I am unclear who would 
enforce the schedule and I would hope this is clarified in conference.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I share these concerns. We want to put Federal 
facilities back into productive use as quickly as we can. But we must 
make sure that we do so in a way that protects our citizens health and 
their environment. While the amendment includes a number of assurances 
that must be made before a transfer can occur, we must make sure that 
all of the assurances are met so that health and safety are not 
compromised and cleanup occurs as quickly as possible. One of the most 
effective tools now being used to expedite cleanups are interagency 
agreements, including tri-party agreements. Does the Senator agree that 
triparty agreements are an effective mechanism for ensuring input from 
States and coordinating cleanup efforts, and should be used where 
appropriate?
  Mr. SMITH. Triparty agreements have proven to be an effective tool to 
coordinate the cleanup efforts at Federal facilities. These agreements 
should be used where appropriate, and nothing in this amendment would 
impede the ability of Federal regulatory agencies and States to enter 
into such agreements.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Let me restate my interest in expediting the reuse of 
these properties. But it must be done carefully and cleanups must 
proceed in a timely manner. In addition, we must make sure that States 
have all of the tools that they need to be partners in these transfers 
of Federal lands and in their cleanup. I hope the Senator will work to 
address my concerns in conference.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4409) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4410

(Purpose: To strengthen certain sanctions against nuclear proliferation 
                              activities)

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

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Glenn, for 
     himself and Mr. Pell, proposes an amendment numbered 4410.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1072. STRENGTHENING CERTAIN SANCTIONS AGAINST NUCLEAR 
                   PROLIFERATION ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 2(b)(4) of the Export-Import Bank 
     Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635(b)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``any country has willfully aided or 
     abetted'' the following: ``, or any person has knowingly 
     aided or abetted,'';
       (2) by striking ``or countries'' and inserting ``, 
     countries, person, or persons'';
       (3) by inserting after ``United States exports to such 
     country'' the following: ``or, in the case of any such 
     person, give approval to guarantee, insure, or extend credit, 
     or participate in the extension of credit in support of, 
     exports to or by any such person for a 12-month period,'';
       (4) by inserting ``(A)'' immediately after ``(4)'';
       (5) by inserting after ``United States exports to such 
     country'' the second place it

[[Page S7244]]

     appears the following: ``, except as provided in subparagraph 
     (B),''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) In the case of any country or person aiding or 
     abetting a non-nuclear-weapon state as described in 
     subparagraph (A), the prohibition on financing by the Bank 
     contained in the second sentence of that subparagraph shall 
     not apply to the country or person, as the case may be, if 
     the President determines and certifies in writing to the 
     Congress that--
       ``(i) reliable information indicates that the country or 
     person with respect to which the determination is made has 
     ceased to aid or abet any non-nuclear-weapon state to acquire 
     any nuclear explosive device or to acquire unsafeguarded 
     special nuclear material; and
       ``(ii) the President has received reliable assurances from 
     the country or person that such country or person will not, 
     in the future, aid or abet any non-nuclear-weapon state in 
     its efforts to acquire any nuclear explosive device or any 
     unsafeguarded special nuclear material.
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (B)--
       ``(i) the term `country' has the meaning given to `foreign 
     state' in section 1603(a) of title 28, United States Code;
       ``(ii) the term `knowingly' is used within the meaning of 
     the term `knowing' in section 104 of the Foreign Corrupt 
     Practices Act; and
       ``(iii) the term `person' means a natural person as well as 
     a corporation, business association, partnership, society, 
     trust, any other nongovernmental entity, organization, or 
     group, and any governmental entity operating as a business 
     enterprise, and any successor of any such entity.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--(1) The amendments made by paragraphs 
     (1) through (5) of subsection (a) shall apply to persons, and 
     the amendment made by subsection (a)(6), shall apply to 
     countries and persons, aiding or abetting non-nuclear weapon 
     states on or after June 29, 1994.
       (2) Nothing in this section or the amendments made by this 
     section shall apply to obligations undertaken pursuant to 
     guarantees, insurance, and the extension of credits (and 
     participation in the extension of credits) made before the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

                    Nuclear Proliferation Sanctions

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, this amendment will authorize the President 
to impose Export-Import Bank sanctions against specific entities that 
knowingly aid or abet countries to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear 
materials for such weapons.
  Each of the Commanders in Chief and Secretaries of Defense of this 
country-- regardless of their party affiliation--has over the last half 
century recognized that the global spread of nuclear weapons 
constitutes one of the gravest threats to our national security, to the 
security of our friends and allies, and to world order. Though there 
are other weapons of mass destruction that may be easier to acquire and 
to use, a nuclear weapon has the unique ability to obliterate a whole 
city in an instant. For this reason, it is understandable that our 
national leadership and defense community have exerted considerable 
effort over the last several decades to reducing this threat to all 
Americans.
  The persisting and ever-changing nature of this threat, coupled with 
the many pathways that are available to countries to acquire such 
bombs, requires our Government--both the Congress and the Executive--to 
ensure that the tools we use to combat this threat are up to the job. 
When these tools are sharp and working as intended, the security of 
each and every American citizen is enhanced accordingly. Our law must 
continually respond to--but never surrender to--new challenges that 
arise with the passage of time.
  Current law--The Export Import Bank Act--requires the denial of Exim 
Bank credits to finance goods destined to: Any country that has 
violated safeguards or a U.S. nuclear agreement; any non-nuclear-weapon 
state that detonates a bomb; or any country that has willfully aided or 
abetted a non-nuclear-weapon state to get the bomb.
  The first two of these sanctions were enacted on October 26, 1977, 
whereas I authored the language in the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 
Act of 1994 which created the third sanction authority listed above.
  Revelations in 1996 that a government-owned Chinese entity had sent 
sensitive uranium enrichment technology to Pakistan raised the 
possibility of the denial of several billion dollars of Exim-financed 
credits for United States exports to China. Unfortunately, the China 
Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation [CNEIC]--the specific entity 
involved in the transaction--escaped all sanctions since the law 
prescribed sanctions only against a country that willfully aids and 
abets proliferation. Also, the United States took no action against 
China because of insufficient evidence of willful intent on the part of 
China's leaders. The current law does not authorize the President to 
target Exim sanctions against specific entities--including state-owned 
entities like CNEIC operating as a business enterprise--that knowingly 
engage in illicit nuclear transfers.
  The amendment builds upon existing Exim Bank sanctions authorities 
for the most serious proliferation-related activities--that is, 
violations of safeguards and U.S. nuclear agreements, nuclear 
detonations, and willful state actions in promoting proliferation. It 
authorizes the President to target such sanctions against persons, 
including government-owned entities operating as a commercial 
enterprise, that knowingly aid or abet a country to acquire a nuclear-
explosive device or nuclear material for such a device.
  The amendment also authorizes the President to terminate sanctions 
that are imposed against countries and persons that aid and abet such 
forms of proliferation, upon receipt of reliable assurances that the 
activity has stopped and will not recur. The intention here is to give 
the violator an incentive to cease the prohibited activity and a 
disincentive for continuing it.
  This new sanctions authority will by no means serve as a panacea for 
all of the proliferation threats that will face our country in the 
years ahead. But it is not intended to perform this function. It seeks 
to achieve a more specific purpose. By enabling the President to target 
sanctions against specific proliferators, the new language would 
strengthen the credibility of this sanctions authority and thereby work 
to discourage future business with enterprises like the CNEIC which 
knowingly promote the global spread of nuclear weapons. The amendment 
will work to ensure that the taxpayer dollars controlled by the Exim 
Bank are being used to advance the commercial interests of the United 
States, not the commercial interests of enterprises that are promoting 
the global spread of nuclear weapons.
  My intent is no more and no less than to move our legislation another 
step toward taking the profits out of proliferation. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer with the Senator from 
Ohio [Mr. Glenn] an amendment that would withhold for a period of 1 
year Export-Import Bank credits for any entity that knowingly assists a 
nonnuclear weapons state to acquire a nuclear explosive device or the 
special nuclear materials for such a device. I am pleased that the 
Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] is joining us as a cosponsor.
  This amendment represents a significant advance in our efforts to 
target companies that are profiting from nuclear proliferation. It will 
strengthen the President's hand in showing United States determination 
to do all that it can to prevent illicit trafficking in nuclear weapons 
and the materials needed to make them.
  Under current law, and subject to a national interest waiver, Exim 
Bank credits are denied to: First, any country that has violated an 
international nuclear safeguards agreement; second, any country that 
has violated an agreement for nuclear cooperation with the United 
States; third, any nonnuclear weapons state that has detonated a 
nuclear weapon, or fourth, any country that has willfully aided or 
abetted a nonnuclear weapons state to get nuclear weapons.
  This amendment requires the President to apply sanctions against 
persons, including government-owned entities operating as commercial 
enterprises, that knowingly aid or abet efforts by a country to acquire 
a nuclear explosive device or the nuclear material for such a device. 
The amendment also authorizes the President to terminate sanctions upon 
receipt of reliable assurances that the effort to aid or abet has 
ceased and that such country or person will not in the future aid or 
abet any nonnuclear weapons state in efforts to acquire nuclear 
explosives or unsafeguarded materials.
  Mr. President, in May the State Department announced that a firm 
owned by the Chinese Government, China Nuclear Energy Industry Crop. 
[CNEIC],

[[Page S7245]]

had sent ring magnets to an unsafeguarded Pakistani nuclear enrichment 
facility and it had engaged in other undisclosed nuclear cooperation. 
The law provides for sanctions in such a case against China if the 
transfer was the result of a willful action by the Government of China. 
Under this amendment, CNEIC could be sanctioned specifically for its 
activities for a period of 1 year. With this amendment the United 
States would move away from a situation in which Exim financing denial 
must be applied against a whole country, or not at all, which has 
presented very difficult choices. With this amendment, the denial of 
Exim financing can be focused on the wrongdoer. This will help us avoid 
charades in which we desperately avoid facing up to proliferation 
problems. As a result, companies and countries tempted to misbehave in 
the proliferation area will know that there is a much more real 
prospect of penalties that are both painful and appropriate.
  Mr. President, this amendment represents a further refinement of an 
expanding array of sanctions legislation that is steadily evolving in 
order to make it a more effective instrument of U.S. foreign policy in 
a bipartisan effort to end the spread of nuclear weapons.
  This has included the Glenn and Symington amendments of the mid-
1970's, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, the Chemical and 
Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, and the 
Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994, as well as a number of 
other legislative initiatives.
  The Senate has been in the lead of efforts to develop a coherent and 
effective nonproliferation policy for the United States. At times, 
those of us most involved have worked closely with the executive 
branch. At other times we have been at odds, but we have been able to 
reach reasonable compromises. As a result, the United States has set an 
example for the rest of the world and has brought other nations along 
with us. In addition, some of the nations most concerned about 
proliferation have taken their own initiatives and the result is a 
world steadily more attuned to the problems posed by nonproliferation 
and better willing and able to deal with those problems.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Glenn and the 
distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, 
Senator Pell, as an original cosponsor of this amendment. I have a 
clear and simple reason for supporting this amendment. I am appalled at 
the legal gymnastics in which the administration has engaged for the 
purpose of avoiding sanctions against Communist China.
  This, mind you, Mr. President, was after Beijing had supplied 
critical dual use technology to another nation's nuclear weapons 
program. At a minimum, the administration's refusal--on May 10, 1996--
to determine that sanctionable activity occurred under section 2(b)(4) 
of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 undermined the credibility of the 
United States' effort to discourage trafficking in nuclear weapons 
technology.
  This administration traded away our vital national security concerns 
in exchange for a denial by the Beijing government that it knew that 
Government-owned entities were in fact selling highly specialized ring-
magnets to other countries, and China's promise not to do it again--and 
we all know what that promise is worth. In any event, that is all it 
took for China's nuclear traffickers to make a complete mockery of 
United States sanctions legislation.
  Now, let's examine, for the record, what the Chinese had to say in 
order to placate the Clinton administration:

       As a state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
     Nuclear Weapons [NPT], China strictly observes its 
     obligations under the treaty, and is against the 
     proliferation of nuclear weapons, or assisting other 
     countries in developing such weapons. The nuclear cooperation 
     between China and the countries concerned is exclusively for 
     peaceful purposes. China will not provide assistance to 
     unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. China stands for the 
     strengthening of the international nuclear non-proliferation 
     regime, including the strengthening of safeguards and export 
     control measures.

  Mr. President, if China truly observed its obligations under the NPT, 
it would not persistently violate Article I of the treaty stipulating 
that a nuclear weapons state party to the treaty shall not in any way 
encourage, assist, or induce any nonnuclear weapons state to 
manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. Article III of the 
treaty prohibits countries from providing equipment to process, use, or 
produce fissionable material to unsafeguarded programs in nonnuclear 
weapons states.
  If China were abiding by all of its NPT obligations, why would it 
need to pledge to refrain from assisting unsafeguarded facilities? 
Maybe China intends to abide by only selective parts of the NPT, just 
as it appears to adhere selectively only to portions of the Missile 
Technology Control Regime guidelines.
  This latest pledge is worthless. It is second-verse-same-as-the-
first, a song we have all heard before. In 1984, Chinese Premier, Zhao 
Ziyang, tried to downplay concerns over China's covert assistance to 
aspiring nuclear powers by declaring, at the White House, that ``we do 
not engage in nuclear proliferation ourselves, nor do we help other 
countries develop nuclear weapons.'' A decade later, in 1994, China 
piously proclaimed its ``shared commitment to preventing the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons * * *'' to escape punishment for its 
transfer of M-11 missiles to Pakistan.
  Mr. President, if I had given my granddaughters a nickel every time 
China made a false promise, there would be a loaded piggy bank on 
Julia's bedroom dresser. The history of United States-Chinese relations 
is littered with broken Chinese promises and worthless pledges. We now 
have the spectacle of the Chinese promising to enforce their promises 
regarding intellectual property rights--even as reports arrive that 
pirate CD factories continue to operate in China. Taking Red China at 
its word is perilous and foolish, particularly when the firm that just 
finished escaping sanctions for its export of ring magnets to Pakistan 
now plans to export a uranium conversion facility to Iran.
  In fact, I am astounded at the ferocity with which this 
administration attacked China when the interests of Hollywood and the 
entertainment industry were at stake. But compare that to the 
administration's meek and mild reaction to Chinese trafficking in 
nuclear materials. I cannot imagine a case in which our national 
interests have seemed more skewed.
  So, Mr. President, this amendment will strengthen existing sanctions 
law by requiring the President to withhold export-import bank financing 
from anybody who encourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If we 
have to close off every escape route in legislation, one by one, to 
force this administration to deal with China's proliferation 
activities, then that is what we must do.
  In any event, I am not prepared to sit idly by as China offers 
platitudes in order to escape any and all punishment for its actions. 
And I certainly am not willing to underwrite loans to the very firm 
that is transferring nuclear weapons technology to Iran.
  Mr. McCAIN. This amendment has been cleared on this side, and I urge 
the Senate to adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4410) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4411

 (Purpose: To establish a 1-year pilot program for online transfer of 
defense technology information from institutions of higher education to 
   private businesses through an interactive data network involving 
                   institutions of higher education)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Chafee, I offer an 
amendment which would establish a 1-year pilot program for online 
transfer of defense technology information from institutions of higher 
education to private businesses through an interactive data network 
involving institutions of higher education.
  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. Chafee, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4411.


[[Page S7246]]


  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII add the following:

     SEC. 810. PILOT PROGRAM FOR TRANSFER OF DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 
                   INFORMATION TO PRIVATE INDUSTRY.

       (a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry 
     out a pilot program to demonstrate online transfers of 
     information on defense technologies to businesses in the 
     private sector through an interactive data network involving 
     Small Business Development Centers of institutions of higher 
     education.
       (b) Computerized Data Base of Defense Technologies.--(1) 
     Under the pilot program, the Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the head of an eligible institution of higher 
     education that provides for such institution--
       (A) to develop and maintain a computerized data base of 
     information on defense technologies;
       (B) to make such information available online to--
       (i) businesses; and
       (ii) other institutions of higher education entering into 
     partnerships with the Secretary under subsection (c).
       (2) The online accessibility may be established by means of 
     any of, or any combination of, the following:
       (A) Digital teleconferencing.
       (B) International Signal Digital Network lines.
       (C) Direct modem hookup.
       (c) Partnership Network.--Under the pilot program, the 
     Secretary shall seek to enter into agreements with the heads 
     of several eligible institutions of higher education having 
     strong business education programs to provide for the 
     institutions of higher education entering into such 
     agreements--
       (1) to establish interactive computer links with the data 
     base developed and maintained under subsection (b); and
       (2) to assist the Secretary in making information on 
     defense technologies available online to the broadest 
     practicable number, types, and sizes of businesses.
       (d) Eligible Institutions.--For the purposes of this 
     section, an institution of higher education is eligible to 
     enter into an agreement under subsection (b) or (c) if the 
     institution has a Small Business Development Center.
       (e) Defense Technologies Covered.--(1) The Secretary shall 
     designate the technologies to be covered by the pilot program 
     from among the existing and experimental technologies that 
     the Secretary determines--
       (A) are useful in meeting Department of Defense needs; and
       (B) should be made available under the pilot program to 
     facilitate the satisfaction of such needs by private sector 
     sources.
       (2) Technologies covered by the program should include 
     technologies useful for defense purposes that can also be 
     used for nondefense purposes (without or without 
     modification).
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``Small Business Development Center'' means a 
     small business development center established pursuant to 
     section 21 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648).
       (2) The term ``defense technology'' means a technology 
     designated by the Secretary of Defense under subsection (d).
       (3) The term ``partnership'' means an agreement entered 
     into under subsection (c).
       (g) Termination of Pilot Program.--The pilot program shall 
     terminate one year after the Secretary enters into an 
     agreement under subsection (b).
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated under section 201(4) for 
     university research initiatives, $3,000,000 is available for 
     the pilot program.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4411) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4412

                (Purpose: To make technical corrections)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Thurmond and Nunn, I 
offer an amendment to make technical corrections to S. 1745.
  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 Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Thurmond, 
     for himself and Mr. Nunn, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4412.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In section 216, strike out the section heading and insert 
     in lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 216. TIER III MINUS UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE.

       In section 3131(e), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
     strike out ``section 3101'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``section 3101(b)(1)''.
       In section 3131(e)(1), strike out ``and'' after the 
     semicolon.
       In section 3131(e)(2), strike out the period at the end and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``; and''.
       At the end of section 3131(e), add the following:
       (3) not more than $100,000,000 shall be available for other 
     tritium production research activities.
       In section 3132(a), strike out ``requirements for tritium 
     for'' and insert in lieu thereof ``tritium requirements 
     for''.
       In section 3136(a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
     strike out ``section 3102'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``section 3102(b)''.
       In section 3136(a)(1), strike out ``$43,000,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$65,700,000''.
       In section 3136(a)(2), strike out ``$15,000,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$80,000,000''.
       In section 3136(a)(2), strike out ``stainless steel'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``non-aluminum clad''.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4412) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe that completes the cleared 
amendments.
  I would like to inform Senators that a unanimous-consent agreement 
has been tentatively worked out and is being drawn up for the approval 
of the Democratic leader.
  We are working at this time to get time agreements on the remaining 
amendments which would be part of the unanimous-consent agreement.
  I urge my colleagues to contact Senator Thurmond and Senator Nunn, 
the managers of the bill, in order that we might in anticipation of the 
unanimous consent agreement rapidly dispense with these pending 
amendments and then move to final passage. I believe we are at that 
point now.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend the Senator. I do not think we 
can reach the UC without having beforehand ascertaining time for 
amendments. I think one is interdependent with the other.
  Mr. NUNN. We have a list of the amendments. We have swapped that list 
on both sides. I have just gone over each amendment that looks like it 
might have a rollcall vote with the people on our side. I have gotten 
every single person on this list to agree to a relatively short-time 
agreement. There appears to be several of these amendments that we can 
work out. So I think we are making very substantial progress, if we get 
the UC's.
  Mr. McCAIN. I again say to my colleague that we have a list of the 
amendments. We need the time agreements.
  Mr. WARNER. I commend the Senator. That is precisely the direction in 
which we must move.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to make some comments on 
the Feingold amendment which is not the pending business, and I ask 
unanimous consent to be able to make up to 5 minutes of comments on 
that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4388

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the Feingold amendment would impair the 
capacity of our defense to continue to bring on line the F/A-18E/F 
program which needs to be delivered on schedule--and which will deliver 
on schedule--a tactical carrier-based fighter capable of deterring the 
most technologically advanced threats currently available to any of our 
potential adversaries.
  The Feingold amendment would introduce delays in the system which 
would certainly be very costly, be counterproductive, and be expensive 
not only in terms of our economics but it could be costly in terms of 
our ability to defend our Nation.
  The expendability of the E/F will keep this fighter at the forefront 
of combat technology until the advanced Joint Strike Fighter becomes 
available and operational.
  Let me discuss some of the differences between the F/A-18C/D and the 
E/F aircraft. The F/A-18C/D only has 0.2 cubic feet of space available 
for new

[[Page S7247]]

equipment while the E/F has 17 cubic feet of space available making it 
able to incorporate new weapons system advances within the next 20 
years. Common sense tells us that if we are building a new fighter 
aircraft, we should build one that is capable of accommodating future 
advances in technology.
  The increased flight range of the E/F cannot be recreated on the C/D 
merely by attaching larger fuel tanks. Doing so does not give the C/D 
sufficient deck clearance for operations on carriers and further 
restricts the maximum payload. Adding larger tanks to the C/D requires 
stronger wings and landing gear. These modifications to the C/D are not 
cheap, either in dollars or in time for design, manufacture, and 
modification.
  I do not think we can accurately predict what advances there will be 
in weapons, in avionics, in electronics--and as yet unknown 
breakthroughs--that will be developed in the next two decades over 
which the life of one of these fighters is expected to be utilized in 
our Navy. We need maximum flexibility to ensure compatibility with 
future technology.
  The E/F has greater maximum payload and greater mission range by 40 
to 50 percent than the C/D regardless of configuration. The technology 
that increases combat survivability of the E/F, such as the radar 
cross-section, the ``stealthiness'', also greatly exceeds that of the 
C/D, thus keeping the Super Hornet ahead of the advanced weapons that 
are easily available to all of our potential adversaries.
  So the difference between these aircraft is substantial, significant, 
and meaningful. The procurement of more F/18C/Ds is not a viable option 
at this time. Growth within the C/D program has taken advantage of the 
potential originally designed into the aircraft, saving the Defense 
Department money as they made changes to the aircraft as technology 
advanced. Now the time is right to move to the next generation of this 
successful program.
  The Joint Strike Fighter, the JSF, is too far off in the future to 
consider it as a replacement for the C/D. By the time the Joint Strike 
Fighter is available the C/D will be far outdated and that would open a 
technological window of vulnerability in our national defense.
  The F/A-18E/F is already built. The program is on cost, on schedule, 
and 900 pounds underweight, making this a vital and necessary component 
of our defense capacity. The program is not a research and development 
project, but it is an already successful flight test program--it is 
ready to enter full-scale production.

  The Navy just finished a comprehensive review of the F-18E/F program. 
In May of this year, the Navy reported to Congress that the program had 
met or exceeded all their requirements concerning cost, schedule, and 
performance. This program as been a model for other aircraft 
acquisitions by any measure. To interrupt this program on the basis of 
one GAO study, is in my judgment, unwise at this time.
  The amendment would cause delays in a program that has been running 
successfully, which has been running on time, that will create a 
technology that is up to date. The Super Hornet program will deliver a 
carrier-based tactical aircraft at one-third to one-half the cost of 
designing yet another aircraft with the same capabilities from scratch. 
I believe we should continue with the program.
  I oppose the amendment as proposed by Senator Feingold because it 
would cause costly delays, and impair our ability to take advantage of 
this program. Clearly, this aircraft is a fighter with the capacity to 
accommodate the developments of the future--the technology, the 
avionics, the survivability, and the armaments. And if we were to 
impair our ability to go forward in that respect we would find 
ourselves substantially disadvantaged in the capacity to provide for 
the defense of our Nation.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 4413

     (Purpose: To require a report by the President detailing the 
   anticipated casualties and destruction resulting from a nuclear, 
                biological, or chemical weapons attack)

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

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4413.

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

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

     SEC. 237. ANNUAL REPORT ON THREAT OF ATTACK BY BALLISTIC 
                   MISSILES CARRYING NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL, OR 
                   BIOLOGICAL WARHEADS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The worldwide proliferation of ballistic missiles is a 
     potential threat to the United States national interests 
     overseas and challenges United States defense planning.
       (2) In the absence of a national missile defense, the 
     United States remains vulnerable to long-range missile 
     threats.
       (3) Russia has a ground-based missile defense system 
     deployed around Moscow.
       (4) Several countries, including Iraq, Iran, and North 
     Korea may soon be technologically capable of threatening the 
     United States and Russia with ballistic missile attack.
       (b) Report Required.--(1) Each year, the President shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the threats to the United 
     States of attack by ballistic missiles carrying nuclear, 
     biological, or chemical warheads.
       (2) The President shall submit the first report not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Content of Report.--The report shall contain the 
     following:
       (1) A list of all countries thought to have nuclear, 
     chemical, or biological weapons, the estimated numbers of 
     such weapons that each country has, and the destructive 
     potential of the weapons.
       (2) A list of all countries thought to have ballistic 
     missiles, the estimated number of such missiles that each 
     country has, and an assessment of the ability of those 
     countries to integrate their ballistic missile capabilities 
     with their nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons 
     technologies.
       (3) A comparison of the United States civil defense 
     capabilities with the civil defense capabilities of each 
     country that has nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and 
     ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons.
       (4) An estimate of the number of American fatalities and 
     injuries that could result, and an estimate of the value of 
     property that could be lost, from an attack on the United 
     States by ballistic missiles carrying nuclear, chemical, or 
     biological weapons if the United States were left undefended 
     by a national missile defense system covering all 50 States.
       (5) Assuming the use of any existing theater ballistic 
     missile defense system for defense of the United States, a 
     list of the States that would be left exposed to nuclear 
     ballistic missile attacks and the criteria used to determine 
     which States would be left exposed.
       (6) The means by which the United States is preparing to 
     defend itself against the potential threat of ballistic 
     missile attacks by North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and other 
     countries obtaining ballistic missiles capable of delivering 
     nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in the near future.
       (7) For each country that is capable of attacking the 
     United States with ballistic missiles carrying a nuclear, 
     biological, or chemical weapon, a comparison of--
       (A) the vulnerability of the United States to such an 
     attack if theater missile defenses were used to defend 
     against the attack; and
       (B) the vulnerability of the United States to such an 
     attack if a national missile defense were in place to defend 
     against the attack.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, a number of the Members of the Senate have 
reviewed this proposed amendment in the past week. This version of it 
that is being offered this morning is different than what has been 
circulated before. Specifically subparagraph No. 5 is dropped. That is 
one that referred to the strong statement of policy with regard to the 
need to protect American citizens from this threat that is thought to 
be of concern by some. So it is dropped. And then language is modified 
throughout that is not significantly impacted but does solve the 
problem.
  Mr. President, the heart of the resolution is simply to ask for the 
annual statement on the threat that faces the United States from 
incoming ballistic missiles utilizing warheads that could involve 
nuclear technology or chemical or biological weapons.
  Why is it important? There is no question that the parties disagree 
at times about the need for an anti-ballistic missile system. My sense 
is that the disagreement comes from the significant cost. But I do not 
believe that there is any disagreement over the concern over the 
potential of a missile attack. The President himself has expressed in 
strong words this concerns of a potential missile attack.

[[Page S7248]]

  Let me quote from Executive Order 12938. This was issued by the 
President in November 1994.

       I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of 
     America, find that the proliferation of nuclear, biological 
     and chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and the 
     means of delivering such weapons constitutes an unusual and 
     extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy 
     and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a 
     national emergency to deal with that threat.

  Mr. President, that was almost 2 years ago. If anything, the threat 
to our country has increased since then. I understand there would be a 
deliberate and extended debate over the amount of money we might spend 
in terms of developing antiballistic missiles, but I do not understand 
why we would want to make those decisions in the dark. We do need to be 
at least aware of the threat. We do need to have a reasonable 
assessment of what damage could be done from these weapons. We do need 
to properly evaluate whether we should move ahead with that research 
and development or not. We need to have some rational evaluation of 
what damage that could be avoided and what problems we would be 
averting if we did develop a antiballistic missile system.
  My hope is that this will be accepted by both sides. It has been 
accepted by the majority side thus far. My hope is that the concessions 
we have made in the modification are acceptable to the minority side. 
If they are not, we ought to vote on this. If America intends to close 
its eyes to what the threat is and not make a reasonable evaluation of 
the dangers we face, then I think we stand in danger of not making a 
rational decision. We should not make a decision that affects our 
future national security out of ignorance. That is what this report is 
all about, to give us a reasonable, thoughtful, objective assessment of 
what danger is. Political leaders can then make their judgments, but we 
should not make it in the dark.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Georgia and 
myself and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, on behalf of the 
chairman of the committee, Mr. Thurmond, have examined this. The 
Senator from Colorado has made significant changes which puts this 
amendment, in our judgment, in a posture that it can be accepted.
  Bear in mind that yesterday the Senate adopted an amendment to 
address the U.S. vulnerability to terrorist attacks involving use of 
weapons of mass destruction. It was sponsored by Senators Nunn and 
Lugar and Domenici, and I covered the floor debate on that. So I think 
this amendment is supplemental in many respects of earlier action taken 
by the Senate on this bill, and therefore we will accept the amendment.
  The amendment is now at the desk. Therefore, Madam President, I urge 
adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Without objection, the amendment 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4413) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, again, the managers of the bill are urging 
Senators to come to the floor. We are proceeding with the hope and 
expectation this bill can be concluded today.
  Seeing no Senator at this moment seeking recognition, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, the Brown amendment has been accepted. I 
had given my side's approval on that.
  There is some language in here that I still want to look at. It is 
accomplished. But I am glad to work with the Senator from Colorado. I 
share his concern about the need for a defense system, a ballistic 
missile defense system.
  I think surely we will be able to work together to find some language 
that needs to be changed somewhat in conference.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I wanted to indicate my appreciation to 
the Senator from Georgia and also indicate it is not my intention to 
add new language that unnecessarily inflames the issue. To the extent 
there is a way we can work together on language that needs to be 
modified, I appreciate his suggestion. I will be happy to work with 
this Senator.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from Colorado.
  Madam President, I believe the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] has 
a couple of amendments, and it is my hope he will be here momentarily 
to present those amendments. Both of these are going to likely require 
a rollcall vote. In the meantime, 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. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4414

   (Purpose: To require that the equipment to be procured with funds 
    authorized to be appropriated under section 105 be selected in 
accordance with the modernization priorities of the reserve components)

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

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4414.

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

       At the end of title I add the following:

                     Subtitle E--Reserve Components

     SEC. 141. RESERVE COMPONENT EQUIPMENT.

       (a) Applicability of Modernization Priorities.--The 
     selection of equipment to be procured for a reserve component 
     with funds authorized to be appropriated under section 105 
     shall be made in accordance with the highest priorities 
     established for the modernization of that reserve component.
       (b) Reports.--(1) Not later than December 1, 1996, each 
     officer referred to in paragraph (2) shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees an assessment of the 
     modernization priorities established for the reserve 
     component or reserve components for which that officer is 
     responsible.
       (2) The officers required to submit a report under 
     paragraph (1) are as follows:
       (A) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
       (B) The Chief of Army Reserve.
       (C) The Chief of Air Force Reserve.
       (D) The Director of Naval Reserve.
       (E) The Commanding General, Marine Forces Reserve.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          FY 1997                          Authorization                                   Appropriation                                        
                                                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                       
                      Title                                                     SASC change             HNSC change             SAC change              HAC change          Hollow      Hollow  
                                                     Qty.        Cost    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    SASC        HNSC   
                                                                             Qty.        Cost        Qty.        Cost        Qty.        Cost        Qty.        Cost                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                                
                RESERVE EQUIPMENT                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                
                  ARMY RESERVE                                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Miscellaneous equipment.........................  ..........  ..........  ..........      35,000  ..........      10,000  ..........     110,000  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........
25 ton trucks...................................  ..........  ..........  ..........      15,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      15,000  ..........
New procurement 2 5/5 ton trucks................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      15,000  ..........  ..........  ..........      15,000  ..........  ..........
Tactical truck SLEP 2 5 ton.....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      15,000  ..........  ..........  ..........      15,000  ..........  ..........
Tactical truck SLEP 5 ton.......................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000
Heavy truck modernization.......................  ..........  ..........  ..........      30,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      30,000  ..........
HEMTT bridge trans..............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       9,000  ..........  ..........
Dump trucks 20 tons.............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........

[[Page S7249]]

                                                                                                                                                                                                
Water purfication units.........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........
Portable lighting systems w/trailers............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........
Automatic building machines.....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........       2,000
HMMWV maintenance trucks........................  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       6,000       4,000  ..........
All-terrain forklift 10 ton.....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........
All-terrain crane 20 ton........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........
Hydraulic excavator.............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........
HEMTT wrecker...................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       7,000  ..........  ..........
Mk-19 grenade launcher..........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........
Steam cleaner...................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........
Coolant purification system.....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000
Small arms simulator............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........
High mobility trailer...........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000
Unit level logistics system.....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........
SINCGARS........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000
Palletized load system..........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000
Palletized trailers.............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........
HEMTT cargo chassis.............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........
ANGRS-231.......................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........
Laser leveling system...........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal--Army Reserve......................  ..........  ..........  ..........      90,000  ..........     106,000  ..........     110,000  ..........     113,000      49,000      21,000
                                                 ===============================================================================================================================================
                  NAVY RESERVE                                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Miscellaneous Equipment.........................  ..........  ..........  ..........      16,000  ..........      10,000  ..........      30,000  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........
F/A 18 Upgrades.................................  ..........  ..........  ..........      24,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      24,000  ..........
C-9 Replacement Aircraft........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........           4     160,000  ..........  ..........           4     160,000  ..........  ..........
MIUW Van System Upgrades........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000
Night Vision Goggles............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000
C-9 Mods........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000
P-3C Simulator Upgrade..........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000
Magic Lantern Spares............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........
P-3 Modernization...............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      72,000  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal--Navy Reserve......................  ..........  ..........  ..........      40,000  ..........     192,000  ..........      30,000  ..........     242,000      24,000      17,000
                                                 ===============================================================================================================================================
              MARINE CORPS RESERVE                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Miscellaneous Equipment.........................  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........      10,000  ..........      40,000  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........
LAV Improvements................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........
CH-53E..........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........      50,000           2      64,000  ..........  ..........           2      64,000  ..........  ..........
AAV7A1 Modifications............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........
Night Vision Equipment..........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........
Common End User Computers.......................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........
Fork Lifts......................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........
M1A1 Tank Mod Kits..............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........
AN/TPS-59.......................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      11,000  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal--Marine Corps Reserve..............  ..........  ..........  ..........      60,000  ..........      83,000  ..........      40,000  ..........     100,000  ..........  ..........
                                                 ===============================================================================================================================================
                AIR FORCE RESERVE                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Miscellaneous Equipment.........................  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........      10,000  ..........      50,000  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........
C-20G...........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........      30,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      30,000  ..........
F-16 Avionics Upgrades..........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........
Night Vision Devices............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........
A-10 Avionics Upgrades..........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       7,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       7,000  ..........  ..........
C-130 Avionics Upgrades.........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       7,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       7,000  ..........  ..........
HC-130P Tanker Conversion.......................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........
C-130 Modular Airborne Firefighting System......  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........
F-16 Weapons Pylon Upgrades.....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........
KC-135R Engine Kits.............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........     104,000  ..........  ..........  ..........      96,000  ..........       8,000
KC-135 Radar Replacement........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........
B-52 Avionics Upgrades..........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........
Non-aircrew Training Systems....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........
EPLRS/SADL......................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       8,000  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal--Air Force Reserve.................  ..........  ..........  ..........      40,000  ..........     148,000  ..........      50,000  ..........     148,000      30,000       8,000
                                                 ===============================================================================================================================================
    Subtotal--Reserves..........................  ..........  ..........  ..........     230,000  ..........     529,000  ..........     230,000  ..........     603,000     103,000      46,000
                                                 ===============================================================================================================================================
            NATIONAL GUARD EQUIPMENT                                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                                                
               ARMY NATIONAL GUARD                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Miscellaneous Equipment.........................  ..........  ..........  ..........      52,000  ..........      10,000  ..........     125,400  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........
MLRS............................................  ..........  ..........  ..........      30,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      30,000  ..........
Combat and Support Systems......................  ..........  ..........  ..........      23,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      23,000  ..........
Tactical Trucks and Trailers....................  ..........  ..........  ..........      42,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      42,000  ..........
Communications Electronics......................  ..........  ..........  ..........      13,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      13,000  ..........
Logistics Service Support.......................  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........
Night Vision Equipment..........................  ..........  ..........  ..........      14,000  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000       4,000  ..........
Chem/Bio Defense Equipment......................  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........
Aircraft Equipment..............................  ..........  ..........  ..........      21,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      21,000  ..........
Infrastructure Equipment........................  ..........  ..........  ..........      17,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      17,000  ..........
New Procurement Tactical Truck 5 Ton............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........
SLEP 2.5 Ton....................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      15,000  ..........  ..........  ..........      15,000  ..........  ..........
SLEP 5 Ton......................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........
Crashworthy Internal Fuel Cells.................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........
Small Arms Simulators...........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000
AH-1 Boresight devise...........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........
Coolant Purification System.....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........
Avenger I-COFT Simulator........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........
D7 Bulldozer w/Ripper...........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000
Water Purification Unit.........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........
FADEC...........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........
Digital System Test and Training Seminar........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........
Automatic Building Machines.....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........       2,000
AH-1 C-Nite.....................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........
Dump Trucks 20 Ton..............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........
C-23 Sherpa Enhancement Program.................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      28,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      28,000
Helicopter Simulators (ARMS)....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........  ..........      15,000  ..........  ..........
Dragon Modifications............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........
Vibration System Management Systems.............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........
Distance Learning Equipment.....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      29,000  ..........  ..........
Laser Leveling Equipment........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........
Automatic Identification Technology.............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       7,000  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal--Army National Guard...............  ..........  ..........  ..........     224,000  ..........     118,000  ..........     125,400  ..........     139,000     162,000      37,000
                                                 ===============================================================================================================================================
               AIR NATIONAL GUARD                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Miscellaneous Equipment.........................  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........  ..........      40,000  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........

[[Page S7250]]

                                                                                                                                                                                                
Sead Mission Upgrade............................  ..........  ..........  ..........      11,400  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      11,400  ..........
F-16 HTS........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........
C-130J..........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........     284,400           2     105,000  ..........  ..........           2     105,000     179,400  ..........
Theater Deployable Communications...............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      17,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      17,000
C-26B...........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000
Automatic Building Machines.....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........       1,000
F-16 Improved Avionics Intermediate Shop........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      15,000  ..........  ..........  ..........      15,000  ..........  ..........
AN/TLQ-32 Tadar Decoys..........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  ..........
C-130 Upgrades..................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........
EPLRS / SADL....................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      17,000  ..........  ..........
Modular Medical Trauma Unit.....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal--Air National Guard................  ..........  ..........  ..........     305,800  ..........     158,000  ..........      40,000  ..........     166,000     190,800      23,000
                                                 ===============================================================================================================================================
    Subtotal--National Guard....................  ..........  ..........  ..........     529,800  ..........     276,000  ..........     165,400  ..........     305,000     352,800      60,000
                                                 ===============================================================================================================================================
                       DOD                                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                                
    MISC EQUIPMENT (Guard & Reserve Aircraft)                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                
C-130J..........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........     284,400  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
C-9 Replacement Aircraft........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      80,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
Miscellaneous...................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal--Misc Equipment (Aircraft).........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........     364,400  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
                                                 ===============================================================================================================================================
Total, National Guard and Reserve Equipment.....  ..........  ..........  ..........     759,800  ..........     805,000  ..........     759,800  ..........     908,000     455,800     108,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                                                                                                      __________
                                                                                                                                                                                      
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent at this 
point I be allowed to yield to Senator Bingaman to proceed for 15 
minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1923 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the time that has been 
granted me, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wish to advise the Members that we 
made a special exception for Senator Bingaman, and it is the 
expectation of the managers that we will not have similar periods of 
discussion at this critical time on the bill that are not germane to 
the bill. We are making good progress, I wish to advise Senators.
  Madam President, parliamentary clarification. It is the Levin 
amendment relating to----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I am authorized by Senator Levin to indicate that there 
will be a time agreement on that amendment not to exceed 30 minutes, 
divided 20 minutes to the Senator from Michigan and 10 minutes to the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond.
  Madam President, I anticipate, as soon as the Senator from Michigan 
appears on the floor, that we will commence debate on that amendment.
  Seeing no Senator seeking recognition, 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. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4415

 (Purpose: To provide for the retention on active status of the B-52H 
                         bomber aircraft fleet)

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

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] proposes 
     amendment numbered 4415.

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

       At the end of section 1062, add the following:
       (d) Retention of B-52H Aircraft on Active Status.--(1) The 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall maintain in active status 
     (including the performance of standard maintenance and 
     upgrades) the current fleet of B-52H bomber aircraft.
       (2) For purposes of carrying out upgrades of B-52H bomber 
     aircraft during fiscal year 1997, the Secretary shall treat 
     the entire current fleet of such aircraft as aircraft 
     expected to be maintained in active status during the five-
     year period beginning on October 1, 1996.

  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, this amendment is a very simple 
amendment. It says that our B-52 fleet ought to be retained. What it 
also says is that our B-52's ought to be upgraded during fiscal 1997 as 
though they are part of the FYDP.
  Madam President, the reason for this amendment is that we face a 
catch-22 situation. We have agreement from both the authorization 
committee and the Appropriations Committee that our full B-52 fleet 
ought to be retained. We are going to have a bomber review that will be 
available to us next year. We do not want to see any of these planes go 
to the boneyard until that review is complete.
  The B-52's, we have some 94 of them in the inventory. These planes 
are, according to Gen. Michael Loh, the former head of the Air Combat 
Command, good until the year 2035. That is, these airframes have been 
updated repeatedly in a way that makes them useful to us until the year 
2035.
  They are our only dual-capability bomber. These planes are critically 
important to us, given the Bottom-Up Review that revealed we are 
somewhat short of bombers at this point. It makes absolutely no sense 
to be sending some of these planes off to the boneyard under these 
circumstances.
  Madam President, the authorizing committee has said it is critical 
that we keep these planes. The Appropriations Committee has said it is 
critically important that we keep these planes. This amendment will 
allow us to do just that.
  I want to thank the Members on both sides who have helped us with 
this amendment, have drafted it in a way that wins the approval of both 
the majority and the minority. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4415) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I thank, again, 
both the majority Members and the minority Members for their assistance 
with that amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7251]]

                           Amendment No. 4414

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, in a few moments I will modify my 
amendment to eliminate one of the two provisions in the current 
amendment that is at the desk. We have had a number of discussions over 
the years as to whether or not what we call the National Guard package 
should be funded in a way which is generic, so that the National Guard 
can meet their most pressing needs, or whether or not the Congress 
ought to specify item by item by item what they must buy with the money 
that we add each year.
  The Senate has traditionally been for the generic approach. We have 
resisted the temptation, and all of us face that temptation, of adding 
items which we think our own National Guard would want. What we have 
done in the Senate, instead, is to put in more generic groupings so 
that the Guard can select what is the most central items on their 
priority list.
  The House of Representatives each year, traditionally, has broken 
that list down into very specific items which, obviously, reflects the 
desires of each of the State Guards or some of the State Guards. It 
creates a significant advantage for those members who are on the Armed 
Services Committee in the House because they are right there, 
obviously, dividing up that pot.
  As I say, until last year, the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, did 
this generically. Then we went to conference and we argued it out in 
conference, and usually there was some kind of compromise reached 
preserving the generic approach in some years, and some years having to 
give up the generic approach altogether.
  Last year, we did what the House did in the authorization bill. I 
want to give some real credit here to the appropriators in the Senate 
because they have resisted temptation, and they have made this into a 
generic issue. Again, this year, the Senate appropriations bill is 
generic. Ours is a hybrid-- ``ours'' being the pending authorization 
bill. This bill has some of these items done generically and some with 
very specific items. This was an approach that was used under Senator 
Warner's leadership. I want to give him some credit because he did go 
part way in committee to do this more generically. I want to commend 
Senator Warner on the distance that he was able to travel in our 
committee. However, we have a long way to go.
  The question is, how do we get there? How do we get back to what is 
the better Government approach, which is to do this generically, 
because we obviously do not have the time to look into each of these 
specific items, hundreds of them, for each of the Guards in the 50 
States.
  Now, the amendment which I have at the desk goes back to the approach 
that the Senate used a couple years ago, which is the more generic 
approach. And the amendment at the desk does one other thing: It 
requires that the Guard Bureau tell us by September what their 
priorities are so when we come to budgeting next year, we will have the 
lists in front of us to consider, at least, as to what the priorities 
of the Guard Bureaus are.
  That is the second part of the amendment. The first part will take us 
back to generic; the second part would put us in a position next year 
so that if we do decide to go the very specific way in next year's 
bill, we would at least have the priority list of the Guard Bureaus in 
front of us.
  Now, we have asked the various Guard Bureaus as to what their 
preferences are in this regard. Do they agree we should do this 
generically, leaving them the flexibility to meet their most essential 
needs, or would they prefer that the Congress go item by item?
  The responses from, first, the Department of Defense, and then from 
each of the Reserve departments and offices are as follows. From the 
Department of Defense, from the Assistant Secretary for Reserve 
Affairs, Deborah Lee, we have a letter dated May 2, which states:

       The Department's preferred position is that add-ons, if 
     made, be generic with regard to Reserve component equipment. 
     This permits the Department to focus these funds toward the 
     most pressing Reserve component readiness needs based on 
     current requirements.

  The letter from the Army is similar. The Chief of the Army Reserve, 
General Baratz, says, in part:

       Modernization of the Army's Reserve equipment is a key 
     component of readiness. As stated in Assistant Secretary of 
     Defense Deborah Lee's letter dated May 2d, 1996 to Senator 
     Thurmond (attached), the Department of Defense prefers, and I 
     agree, that the generic method of funding equipment for the 
     Reserve is working well.

  From the Marine Corps, from General Wilkerson, a letter saying:

       Congressional authorization of a clear dollar amount to 
     expend toward Marine Corps Reserve priorities grants me the 
     greatest flexibility.

  He further says,

       Having Congress select items not on the priority list would 
     be less desirable.

  Finally, a further note that reflects General Wilkerson's position, 
which is that he agrees with the statement that ``it is important to me 
as Command General Marine Forces Reserve to have the flexibility to 
procure equipment * * * according to my component's mission priorities 
and needs,'' and ``given the choice of Congress providing generic 
authorizations/appropriations under the National Guard Reserve 
Equipment Account (NGREA) versus specific, line-item authorizations/
appropriations, I prefer the flexibility of the former.''
  I ask unanimous consent these four documents that I have referred to 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Assistant Secretary of Defense,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 1996.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am aware that congressional 
     correspondence has been received by some of the Reserve 
     components Chiefs/Directors seeking their views regarding 
     whether congressional equipment funding add-ons should be by 
     line-item or generic. The Department's preferred position is 
     that add-ons, if made, be generic with regard to Reserve 
     component equipment. This permits the Department to focus 
     these funds toward the most pressing Reserve component 
     readiness needs based on current requirements.
       Your continued support of our Reserve Forces is greatly 
     appreciated.
           Sincerely,
     Deborah R. Lee.
                                                                    ____

                                           Department of the Army,


                            Office of the Chief, Army Reserve,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 1996.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: Thank you for the opportunity to 
     comment on the methods the Congress uses to meet the needs of 
     the U.S. Army Reserve. Your efforts and those of Congress 
     have been critical to reducing Army Reserve shortfalls and 
     are greatly appreciated. Your support has greatly increased 
     our readiness, and as a result the Army has come to rely more 
     on the Army Reserve in the defense of the nation.
       Modernization of the Army Reserve's equipment is a key 
     component of readiness. As stated in Assistant Secretary of 
     Defense Deborah Lee's letter dated May 2nd, 1996 to Senator 
     Thurmond (attached), the Department of Defense prefers, and I 
     agree, that the generic method of funding equipment for the 
     Reserve is working well. The direct allocation of funds to 
     the reserve components insures these funds are used to 
     improve reserve component readiness. Within the current 
     budgeting and funds allocation processes used by the 
     Department of Defense, designation by Congress of funds 
     intended for use by the reserve components ensures a direct 
     benefit to the Army Reserve.
       Once again, thank you for all your support of the Army 
     Reserve over the years. The men and women of the Army Reserve 
     stand ready to serve our great nation.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Max Baratz,
     Major General.
                                                                    ____

                                                U.S. Marine Corps,


                             Commander, Marine Forces Reserve,

                                  New Orleans, LA, April 29, 1996.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: Thank you for your recent letter asking 
     for my views on the National Guard Reserve Equipment Account. 
     I have marked the attached sheet as you requested. We have 
     also provided the prioritized list of unfunded equipment in 
     support of the Marine Corps Reserve as requested by the staff 
     of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
       Congressional authorization of a clear dollar amount to 
     expend toward Marine Corps Reserve priorities grants me the 
     greatest flexibility, assuming that once authorized, 
     appropriated and signed into law that the Department of 
     Defense provides that money and allows us the flexibility to 
     procure our equipment within our established priorities.
       Having Congress review the prioritized equipment list and 
     deciding to provide monies against that list would come close 
     to that

[[Page S7252]]

     standard. Having Congress select items not on the priority 
     list would be less desirable. In any case, we appreciate the 
     interest and support you have provided to the Total Force 
     Marine Corps Reserve in the past.
           Sincerely,
                                                   T.L. Wilkerson,
     Major General.
                                                                    ____


                               [Excerpt]

       It is important to me as Command General Marine Forces 
     Reserve to have the flexibility to procure equipment, other 
     than equipment provided by the Navy, according to my 
     component's mission priorities and needs.
       Given the choice of Congress providing generic 
     authorizations/appropriations under the National Guard 
     Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) versus specific, line-item 
     authorizations/appropriations, I prefer the flexibility of 
     the former.
           Signed,
                                        MGen. Thomas L. Wilkerson.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, as a practical matter, I feel it is 
important that we make some progress on this issue this year. I might 
say it is a compliment to my friend from Virginia when I say 
``progress,'' because we did make some progress in committee. Under the 
leadership of the Senator from Virginia, we did go partway toward the 
generic approach.
  As I indicated before, I compliment him for moving us in that 
direction. It is, in my view, at least a better Government provision to 
give the flexibility to the Guard and the Reserve to pick their most 
important priorities, rather than us trying to work through hundreds 
and hundreds of specific line items and, frankly, in a way which does 
not give adequate attention to the needs of the Guard.
  In order to make continued progress this year, and to take one step 
instead of losing one step, perhaps, on a rollcall vote, I am going to 
modify my amendment and strike the requirement that this bill be made 
entirely generic instead of its partial generic approach, leaving in 
the bill the requirement that we receive from the Reserves their 
priority lists by next December so that we will have them in front of 
us when we do our authorizing next year. And I will send that 
modification to the desk in a moment. I see my good friend from 
Virginia on his feet.

  I yield the floor at this time.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague and 
fellow committee member. Indeed, together we have worked with other 
members on the committee in this direction. It is very simple. We are 
putting accountability and responsibility where it belongs--that is, 
with the knowledgeable persons in the overall infrastructure of the 
Department of Defense--to make those decisions.
  I support this effort, subject to the amendment being sent to the 
desk. I will also mention that Senator Robb and I obtained earlier, in 
the consideration of this bill, requirements to have the Reserve 
Component Modernization Program. These two actions are complementary. I 
am prepared to accept the amendment when the Senator sends it to the 
desk.


                    Amendment No. 4414, As Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I send an amendment, as modified, to the 
desk reflecting the changes which I previously described.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 4414), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title I add the following:

                     Subtitle E--Reserve Components

     SEC. 141. ASSESSMENTS OF MODERNIZATION PRIORITIES OF THE 
                   RESERVE COMPONENTS.

       (a) Assessments Required.--Not later than December 1, 1996, 
     each officer referred to in subsection (b) shall submit to 
     the congressional defense committees an assessment of the 
     modernization priorities established for the reserve 
     component or reserve components for which that officer is 
     responsible.
       (b) Responsible Officers.--The officers required to submit 
     a report under subsection (a) are as follows:
       (1) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
       (2) The Chief of Army Reserve.
       (3) The Chief of Air Force Reserve.
       (4) The Director of Naval Reserve.
       (5) The Commanding General, Marine Forces Reserve.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4414), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, we are making progress here on these 
amendments. Senator McCain is working very diligently with the 
distinguished ranking member of the committee.
  I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed 
back to the consideration of the Brown amendment, the second-degree 
amendment to the Nunn amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I would think that it would be the regular 
order, is that correct? I do not know that there has been an amendment 
submitted yet as a second degree. So perhaps the regular order is to 
bring back the Nunn amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair's understanding is that the 
amendment was withdrawn.
  Mr. NUNN. The Nunn amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Brown amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4367

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, perhaps it is more appropriate to go to 
the regular order, which is the Nunn amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order has been called for.
  Mr. NUNN. This will be the amendment sponsored by myself, Senator 
Hutchison, Senator Bradley, Senator Cohen, Senator Kassebaum, on NATO 
enlargement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                Amendment No. 4416 to Amendment No. 4367

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Brown, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4416 to amendment No. 4367.

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

       Strike all after page 1, line 3, and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following:
       (a) Not later than December 1, 1996, the President shall 
     transmit a report on NATO enlargement to the Committee on 
     Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on National Security and the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives. The report shall contain a comprehensive 
     discussion of the following:
       (1) Geopolitical and financial costs and benefits, 
     including financial savings, associated with:
       (A) enlargement of NATO;
       (B) further delays in the process of NATO enlargement; and
       (C) a failure to enlarge NATO.
       (2) Additional NATO and U.S. military expenditures 
     requested by prospective NATO members to facilitate their 
     admission into NATO;
       (3) Modifications necessary in NATO's military strategy and 
     force structure required by the inclusion of new members and 
     steps necessary to integrate new members, including the role 
     of nuclear and conventional capabilities, reinforcement, 
     force deployments, prepositioning of equipment, mobility, and 
     headquarter locations;
       (4) The relationship between NATO enlargement and 
     transatlantic stability and security;
       (5) The state of military preparedness and interoperability 
     of Central and Eastern European nations as it relates to the 
     responsibilities of NATO membership and additional security 
     costs or benefits that may accrue to the United States from 
     NATO enlargement;
       (6) The state of democracy and free market development as 
     it affects the preparedness of Central and Eastern European 
     nations for the responsibilities of NATO membership, 
     including civilian control of the military, the rule of law, 
     human rights, and parliamentary oversight;
       (7) The state of relations between prospective NATO members 
     and their neighbors, steps taken by prospective members to 
     reduce tensions, and mechanisms for the peaceful resolution 
     of border disputes;
       (8) The commitment of prospective NATO members to the 
     principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and the security of 
     the North Atlantic area;
       (9) The effect of NATO enlargement on the political, 
     economic and security conditions of European Partnership for 
     Peace nations not among the first new NATO members;
       (10) The relationship between NATO enlargement and EU 
     enlargement and the costs and benefits of both;
       (11) The relationship between NATO enlargement and treaties 
     relevant to U.S. and European security, such as the 
     Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty; and

[[Page S7253]]

       (12) The anticipated impact both of NATO enlargement and 
     further delays of NATO enlargement on Russian foreign and 
     defense policies and the costs and benefits of a security 
     relationship between NATO and Russia.
       (b) Independent Assessment.--Not later than 15 days after 
     enactment of this Act, the Majority Leader of the Senate and 
     the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint a 
     chairman and two other members and the Minority Leaders of 
     the Senate and House of Representatives shall appoint two 
     members to serve on a bipartisan review group of 
     nongovernmental experts to conduct an independent assessment 
     of NATO enlargement, including a comprehensive review of the 
     issues in (a) 1 through 12 above. The report of the review 
     group shall be completed no later than December 1, 1996. The 
     Secretary of Defense shall furnish the review group 
     administrative and support services requested by the review 
     group. The expenses of the review group shall be paid out of 
     funds available for the payment of similar expenses incurred 
     by the Department of Defense.
       (c) Nothing in this section should be interpreted or 
     construed to affect the implementation of the NATO 
     Participation Act of 1994, as amended (P.L. 103-447), or any 
     other program or activity which facilitates or assists 
     prospective NATO members.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, Senator Nunn, Senator Brown, Senator 
Hutchison, and I, and a number of others, have been able to work out an 
agreement on a NATO enlargement study amendment, which I believe will 
give Congress a truly objective report.
  The amendment requires the President to look not only at the costs 
associated with enlargement, but the cost and benefits associated with 
further delaying a decision on the matter. It also requires an 
assessment of enlargement by an independent bipartisan group. Our 
interest in an additional assessment, frankly, stems from apprehension 
on the President's findings. We know where the President stands on the 
issue of NATO enlargement.
  With all due respect, I think we need two opinions on an issue that 
is this important. I would prefer that we move forward on enlargement, 
because I believe that it is something that is very important, but I 
understand the concerns of the Senator from Georgia that these 
questions must be answered before we move forward. There is a great 
deal at risk. I believe that the Senator from Georgia is correct in 
seeking these answers. I support that, and I am very grateful that the 
Senator from Georgia would accept the input of Senator Brown, and 
others, in order that, in our view, we make the report balanced. I 
especially appreciate the agreement of the Senator from Georgia that 
there be an alternative study to this very vital issue, which will be 
the subject, I believe, of very intense and spirited debate here on the 
floor of the Senate.
  I thank my colleague from Georgia not only for this, but his many 
other contributions as we go through this day.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, first, I thank my friend from Arizona for 
working diligently on this amendment. It is a good second-degree 
amendment. I will urge its approval.
  I ask unanimous consent that the authors of the first-degree 
amendment, as listed, be incorporated as cosponsors of the second-
degree amendment and, in addition, that Senator Levin, the Senator from 
Michigan, be added as a cosponsor of the second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. This is probably one of the most important subject matters 
that we have had on this defense bill this year or, frankly, any other 
year. When you enlarge an alliance that has been as successful as the 
NATO alliance, there are serious questions that need to be asked, both 
by the existing NATO members and by the new prospective members.
  This amendment is an amendment that asks the important questions. The 
original amendment, the underlying Nunn amendment, cosponsored by my 
friend from Texas, Senator Hutchison, Senator Bradley, Senator 
Kassebaum, and Senator Cohen, asked a number of questions.
  This amendment is a simplified version of the original amendment. 
This amendment, the second degree, carries out the original intent of 
asking the tough questions so that the President will focus on those 
and so that the Congress will focus on those and so the American people 
will focus on those. This second-degree amendment asks additional 
questions that makes sure that this is a balanced report, which has 
been the overall intent from the beginning. But I think the second-
degree amendment fairly reflects that balance in asking for both the 
costs and the benefits of the expansion.
  That has been the original intent. I think this is a good amendment.
  Madam President, I urge that the second-degree amendment be adopted. 
I do not think we will need a rollcall vote on that. But, once adopted, 
I would like a rollcall vote on the underlying amendment because it is 
a very important amendment.
  I will defer to the chairman of the committee as to when we have that 
rollcall vote, so it will be most conducive to the conducting of our 
business. But I suggest that we accept a voice vote on the second 
degree and then have a rollcall vote on the Nunn amendment, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4416) was agreed to.
  Mr NUNN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, pending the agreement of the majority 
leader, I will temporarily ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays 
be delayed until such time as the majority leader, in consultation with 
the Democratic leader, decide when that vote should take place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will yield to the chairman.
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield to the Senator from Texas first.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Does the Senator from Virginia need to make a 
statement?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I wanted to add how much I appreciate Senator Nunn, 
Senator McCain, and Senator Bradley for helping work out what I think 
is a very important amendment, which will say exactly what the 
parameters of the expansion of our NATO alliance should be--the 
questions that should be asked, the positives as well as the negatives. 
I think that is exactly what we ought to be doing.
  The bottom line is, when we are talking about probably the best 
alliance that has ever been put together in the history of the world, 
we want to expand it judiciously and wisely. When we are talking about 
putting the lives of our military personnel, potentially, on the line, 
we need to do so judiciously and wisely. When we talk about spending 
the hard-earned taxpayer dollars that are there for the national 
defense of our country, when we talk of expanding that responsibility, 
we need to do so judiciously and wisely.
  So I appreciate the fact that we are going to ask these questions. 
What are the benefits? What are the costs? What are the potential 
negatives of an expansion of this great NATO alliance? This is the 
responsible approach.
  I thank all of my colleagues who are cosponsors of the Nunn-
Hutchison-McCain-Brown amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, NATO has been the foundation of European 
security for 45 years, possibly the most successful defensive alliance 
in history. However, the world has changed dramatically in the past few 
years, and will continue to change. The end of the cold war has forced 
us to take a look at NATO's continued relevance.
  Members of Congress believe in a strong NATO, and support the 
enlargement of NATO's membership. Our NATO allies also favor 
enlargement.
  I support a renewed and enlarged NATO because it guarantees a U.S. 
presence on the European continent, and a seat at the table in the 
world's most vital, productive region. Quite simply, the United States 
has clear, abiding, and vital interests in Europe. A free and stable 
Europe is essential to the United States.

[[Page S7254]]

  I do not believe Europe can remain stable and prosperous, to the 
mutual benefit of the United States and our European allies, if its 
post-cold war boundary is drawn along the borders of Germany and 
Austria. I do not believe a new European security framework will hold 
up unless it reflects the realities of the political upheaval that 
marked the end of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. That new 
reality includes a reorienting of former East Bloc states toward the 
West.
  Mr. President, I support the amendment, as modified.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to address the NATO study proposed by 
my colleagues Senator Hutchison and Senator Nunn. I very much value and 
encourage their efforts to address core issues of European security, 
particularly those concerning the future role and membership of NATO.
  Indeed, their initiative today addresses questions and issues that do 
need to be debated and examined here in Congress. These concern the 
ramifications that NATO enlargement poses for the Alliance's military 
strategy and force structure and the geopolitical and financial 
benefits and costs to the transatlantic community that enlargement will 
and already does entail.
  As a longstanding supporter of NATO and the extension of NATO 
membership to the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, I was 
initially concerned that the tone and language of their amendment 
initiating this study risked sending absolutely the wrong signal. I was 
concerned that it would signal that this body, the U.S. Senate, opposes 
NATO enlargement.
  That is clearly not the sentiment that has been expressed by this 
Chamber in the recent past. This Chamber has voted repeatedly in 
support of NATO enlargement. It voted in support of the NATO 
Participation Acts and its amendments in 1994 and 1995. And, these acts 
received the support of bi- partisan majorities.
  I am very gratified to hear that Senator Nunn and Senator Hutchison 
are open to suggestions and recommendations concerning the wording of 
their amendment. The proposed modification now before us, I believe, 
addresses my concern. The new wording cannot be misinterpreted as a 
vote against enlargement.
  Moreover, the modification does inject one very important benefit to 
our efforts here in Congress.
  It is no secret that the polarizing and partisan tendencies of 
election-year politics can even undermine how we address strategically 
central foreign policy issues such as NATO enlargement. The proposed 
modification to the NATO study includes the establishment of a 
bipartisan commission of experts to address the same issues upon which 
we wish the President to report concerning NATO enlargement. This will 
be a healthy injection of bipartisanship into our foreign policy 
process.
  I am a longstanding supporter of NATO enlargement, and I want to 
reinforce what I see as an already strong bipartisan consensus on this 
issue. I strongly believe that we need to extend membership in the 
transatlantic community to the nascent democracies of Central and 
Eastern Europe. That's why I call upon my colleagues to accept this 
proposed modification.
  I want to ensure that we address this issue of NATO enlargement here 
in Congress in a manner that reinforces the optimism and drive that 
brought democracy and peace to Central and Eastern Europe. These new 
democracies observe closely how we approach those factors affecting 
their integration into the transatlantic community.
  The proposed modification to the Hutchison-Nunn amendment transforms 
their well-intentioned initiative into an objective effort that not 
only addresses significant and difficult strategic issues but does so 
in a manner that communicates our commitment to the independence and 
security of Central and Eastern Europe's new democracies. The proposed 
modification is consistent with our desire to see these new democracies 
fully integrated into the institutional fabric of the transatlantic 
community.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Arizona if he 
would confirm my understanding that the term ``European Partnership for 
Peace Nations'' includes the nations of Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and 
Estonia.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would be happy to confirm for the 
Senator from Georgia that the term ``European Partnership for Peace 
Nations'' includes the nations of Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and 
Estonia.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment 
offered by my colleague from Colorado and I commend him for his 
continued leadership in this important area. This amendment attempts to 
move the administration along in the United States' effort to help our 
allies in Europe with their admission into NATO.
  The administration has continued to say that they support efforts to 
expand NATO. They say it is not a question of whether we expand NATO, 
it is a question of how and when. I believe that the real issue is 
whether or not the free men and women that comprise our NATO membership 
will stand idly by if the security and independence of Central Europe 
is threatened.
  NATO today remains the core of American engagement in Europe and at 
the heart of European security. It is our most effective instrument for 
coordinating defense and arms control and maintaining stability 
throughout Europe. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the dissolution of 
the Warsaw Pact, and the progress of European integration have not 
ended the need for NATO's essential commitment to safeguard the freedom 
and security of all of its members.
  We must continue to move forward on NATO expansion and not allow 
other non-NATO countries to continue to exercise veto power over 
alliance expansion. The time has come to welcome Europe's new 
democracies into NATO. Only through a continued strong alliance can we 
guarantee another 50 years of peace in Europe.
  I am proud to say that I have joined my colleague from Colorado along 
with our former majority leader Bob Dole, in taking a bold new step 
forward in our efforts to move the administration further in their 
policy. S. 1830, the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996, is the 
third NATO Participation Act offered by Congress. It specifically names 
three countries--Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--as qualifying 
for the program and requires the President to designate other emerging 
democracies in Central and Eastern Europe if they meet the necessary 
criteria.
  The demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has presented NATO 
with new challenges and new opportunities. The international 
environment is fraught with prospects for conflict and instability. The 
countries that re-emerged from the ruins of the Soviet Empire as free 
societies now look to membership in NATO. These newly free countries 
have already fought and suffered to earn the right to their territorial 
integrity, independence, democracy, and free enterprise--precisely the 
values that NATO has maintained in the West for almost 50 years. At 
long last, the pro-Western nations of Central Europe now have the 
opportunity and the will to help us promote those values and to defend 
them.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, subject to the decision of the majority 
and Democratic leader, we will proceed to a vote. Mr. President, we are 
making good progress on this bill. There is an amendment. It is 
anticipated that the Senate will commence a rollcall vote on the 
pending amendment by the Senator from Georgia in 5 minutes, to advise 
Senators so they can make their plans accordingly. In the interim 
period, seeing no Senator seeking recognition, 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be 
added as a cosponsor to the B-2 amendment just offered by Senator 
Conrad.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S7255]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I would like to lay down an amendment that 
would be pending following this vote. What is the procedure?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. To ask unanimous consent that we set aside the 
current proceedings and that the Senator from Kentucky be permitted to 
offer an amendment.
  Mr. FORD. I so request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4112

(Purpose: To amend the special rule for payments for eligible federally 
                          connected children)

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4112.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for himself, Mrs. 
     Boxer, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Craig, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
     Exon, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lott, 
     Mrs. Murray, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Warner, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 4112.

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

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

     SEC.   . TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

       Paragraph (3) of section 8003(a) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``2000 and such number equals or exceeds 
     15'' and inserting ``1000 or such number equals or exceeds 
     10''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kentucky allow the 
Senator from Virginia to put in another UC with regard to an amendment 
which would follow on?
  Mr. FORD. I have no problem. At the request of the managers, I was 
asked to lay this down.
  Mr. WARNER. Correct.
  Mr. FORD. So when we have the vote we could automatically go to this. 
I am perfectly willing to do that.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, following 
disposition of the Ford amendment, the Senate turn to an amendment to 
be offered by the Senator from Virginia on behalf of the Senator from 
Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and that would be the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, such that we keep this bill moving, I 
inform Senators the pending amendment will be voted on at 12:30. In the 
interim period, the Senator from North Dakota wishes to address the 
Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have had many discussions over an 
extended period about national missile defense, and I will be offering 
as soon as it is prepared, as we work through the discussions of the 
wording of an amendment, an amendment on the subject of national 
missile defense.
  I have reached the conclusion that national missile defense is 
necessary. I believe it is not a question of if, but rather a question 
of when missile defenses are deployed and what sort of system do we 
field.
  I have always believed that any system we deploy ought to be treaty 
compliant, ought to be affordable, and ought to be effective. Those 
ought to be the tests.
  Right now, we have no alternative before us that meets those tests, 
at least in the judgment of this Senator. I think it is clear there is 
a threat that exists. Today's threat is of an accidental or 
unauthorized launch of a Russian or Chinese missile. Clearly, that is 
unlikely, but we cannot afford to be wrong.
  The threat that we may face tomorrow is a rogue nation launch. North 
Korea, Libya, other countries may develop an ICBM capability before we 
are anticipating that they would achieve such a capability. We must be 
prepared before we are surprised.
  As I have looked at the options before us, I have been most 
interested in a plan that the Air Force has developed, an Air Force 
alternative that does meet the criteria of being effective, of being 
treaty compliant, and of being affordable.
  I had intended to offer an amendment that would require the 
deployment of such a system in the same timeframe as the Defend America 
Act. I have been persuaded by the chairman and ranking members that the 
best way to proceed would be to require a study of this system by the 
Secretary of Defense and to have a statement by the Senate that this is 
a serious alternative.
  Let me just outline, if I could, the elements of the amendment I 
intended to offer, what the elements of the system are, and then to 
have a chance to discuss the specific amendment I would be offering 
today.
  The Conrad alternative authorizes deployment by 2003 of a Minuteman 
system--20 interceptors at Grand Forks, ND, capable of defending all 50 
States, according to U.S. Air Force analysis.
  The amendment also requires a report from the Department of Defense 
within 1 year on the future of the ICBM threat and a recommendation as 
to whether 20 or 100 interceptors were necessary. It also would express 
the sense of the Congress that the President can and should consult the 
Russian Government to clarify interpretation of the ABM Treaty as may 
be necessary.
  I want to stress that the approach I am endorsing is an approach that 
is treaty compliant. It is a single site. The only question would be 
with certain radars that would be to assist the phased array radar that 
is already agreed to in the treaty. I want to stress this alternative 
does not endanger ABM and START arms control treaties. Second, it is 
not a budget buster. A 20 interceptor system is deployable, according 
to CBO, for $4 billion--not the $40 billion or the $60 billion that we 
have heard associated with defend America, but about $4 billion.
  This system, I believe, is not only treaty compliant, is also not a 
budget buster, and it also uses today's proven missile, tracking and 
command and control technology. We are not talking here about breaking 
new ground. We are not talking about having to find something that has 
not yet been discovered.
  We have the components of this system available to us now.
  I wish to review very briefly what those components are. This is 
leveraged development, in the sense that we are building on what we 
currently have. Instead of going out and trying to recreate the wheel, 
instead of trying to invent something totally new, we have the 
components of this system today. Let me emphasize that we use an 
existing booster--the Minuteman booster. That is the base of this 
system. We use existing command, control, and computers, the NORAD and 
Minuteman systems. We use existing infrastructure, that is the 
Minuteman wing that currently exists at Grand Forks, ND, today. We only 
require an upgrade of existing kill vehicle technology. We use an 
upgrade of existing early warning radars. We do not have to go out and 
invent something new, we have these radars now. We would need X-band 
radars based on existing design. It would be four new radars, as I 
understand it, X-band radars, based on an existing design. So, again, 
we do not have to go out and create something that is new.

  The cost, according to the Air Force, of a 20-Minuteman system is $2 
to $2.5 billion. If we have a more robust force and go up to 100 
Minuteman missiles, we would have a system for $3.5 to $4.5 billion 
according to Air Force estimates. CBO says 20 would cost us $4 billion.
  This is in comparison to the defend America system that goes to a 
layered

[[Page S7256]]

defense after 2000 that would cost from $40 to $60 billion. Yet this is 
a fully capable system.
  Let me give a couple of quick examples of how this would work against 
a rogue nation launch. If Libya, for example, determined that they were 
going to launch on the United States by way of a threat, by way of 
intimidation, this is what the system would allow us to do. If Libya 
launched, our first launch could occur at T plus 480 seconds. Our 
national command authority would have 8 minutes to make a first 
decision to respond. The first intercept would then occur at T plus 
1,200 seconds, and 20 minutes later there would be an intercept of that 
Libyan launched rogue missile. That would be a Minuteman III, fired 
from Grand Forks Air Force Base from existing silos with existing 
launch vehicles using a kinetic kill vehicle that has previously been 
tested. That first intercept would give us a very high probability of 
success in defending against that missile attack.
  Because of the architecture of this system, in this circumstance we 
would have a look-fire-look-fire capability. In other words, we would 
be able to respond to the first launch, fire, see if our missile was 
effective in killing the incoming missile. We would then have a second 
chance to fire again, to knock down that incoming missile. That launch 
would have to occur at T plus 1,420 seconds. That last intercept would 
occur at T plus 1,720 seconds. So this would be an effective system 
against a rogue nation launch, such as against a launch from Libya.
  Let us look at a second alternative, because one of the great 
concerns of a single-site system is, ``Are you going to provide 
protection for all of the United States?'' The answer is, ``Yes.'' The 
Air Force-designed system, which I want to say I applaud General 
Fogleman for developing as an alternative that should be part of this 
mix, I think is a serious alternative. It has been very well thought 
through. People at the Air Force, I think, deserve great commendation 
for the work they have done.
  This chart shows what happens in a case of North Korea launching with 
Hawaii as an intended target. In this situation the first launch picked 
up at T plus 400 seconds. We are launching in response to that at T 
plus 400 seconds. We have the first intercept under this scenario at T 
plus 1,200 seconds.
  On a second launch, in this case we do not have the look-shoot-look-
shoot capability because, obviously, North Korea is much closer to 
Hawaii than Libya is to Washington, DC, so in this case we would have 
to fire immediately again against that missile. We would have dual shot 
capability to attempt to intercept that missile. The first, as I 
indicated, first intercept occurring at T plus 1,200 seconds; the last 
intercept occurring at T plus 1,700 seconds.
  In other words, we would again have two chances to intercept that 
incoming missile. We are able to defend all 50 States from one treaty 
compliant site in the United States.
  We are talking about a cost here of $4 billion in comparison to the 
defend America plan of $60 billion. That is $56 billion of savings. We 
put together kind of a lighthearted list here of ``Top 10 Things We 
Could Do With $56 Billion Other Than To Deploy the `Defend America' 
System.''
  Given the fact we could have a similar capability with this plan, 
which I think clearly is fully capable, is treaty compliant, and highly 
effective, what are the things we could do with $56 billion?
  No. 10 on our list, we could fund the Weatherization Assistance 
Program for 500 years;
  No. 9, we could buy a computer for every school-age child in America.
  Other things we could do with $56 billion that would be saved by 
adopting this system rather than the ``Defend America'' system? We 
could fund all payments to farmers for the next 7 years under the 
Freedom To Farm Act, recently passed by Congress;
  No. 7, we could renovate America's crumbling infrastructure;
  No. 6, we could meet the entire global need for basic child health, 
nutrition, and education for 2 years with the $56 billion we save under 
this plan;
  No. 5, we could provide health care to all Americans under 18 for 9 
months;
  No. 4, we could fund WIC, nutrition for women, infants, and children, 
for 14 years with the savings generated by adopting this approach 
rather than the more expensive ``Defend America'' approach;
  No. 3, we could fund Head Start for 16 years with this $56 billion of 
savings;
  No. 2, we could fund the destruction of ex-Soviet nuclear weapons 
through the Nunn-Lugar Act for 18 years.
  There are many things we could do, Mr. President. No. 1 on our list 
is we could not spend it, and avoid increasing the deficit by $56 
billion. Frankly, that is my favorite option. Let us take the saving, 
let us apply it to the deficit. Let us have a National Missile Defense 
System, let us have one that is treaty compliant, let us have one that 
is cost effective, let us have one that is proven technology, and let 
us save $56 billion and apply it to the deficit.
  Mr. President, I sum up and look at what I call our national missile 
defense checklist, and apply commonsense criteria. Is the system ABM 
Treaty compliant? Is it affordable? Does it utilize proven technology?
  On ``Defend America,'' on all three of the commonsense criteria, it 
fails: It is not treaty compliant, it is not affordable, it does not 
use proven technology. The Conrad alternative does meet the commonsense 
criteria. It is treaty compliant, it is a single site, and uses the 
phased array radar that is called for in the treaty. It is affordable, 
$4 billion instead of $60 billion that CBO says the Defend America Act 
would cost. And it uses proven technology, it uses the existing 
Minuteman boosters, uses a kinetic kill vehicle, it uses the command, 
control, and computers that we already have.
  I hope very much that my colleagues take a serious look at this 
alternative to national missile defense. Clearly, there is a risk. 
Clearly there is a threat. I believe it is a growing risk and a growing 
threat; that at some point, the American people are going to want to 
have deployed a national missile defense system. We can do it. We can 
do it in a way that is treaty compliant. We can do it in a way that is 
affordable. We can do it in a way that is effective.

  Mr. President, the Air Force has come forward with a plan, unveiled 
several weeks ago now by General Fogleman, of a national missile 
defense system that builds on our existing technology, that costs, 
according to Air Force estimates, $2.5 billion, that gives us a 
capability to defend 50 States against accidental launch or rogue 
nation launch.
  Mr. President, I suggest that is a reasonable cost for an insurance 
policy for the American people. I hope my colleagues will take very 
seriously this alternative.
  Momentarily, I will offer an amendment that will call on the Senate 
to indicate that this is a serious alternative that deserves serious 
attention and requires the Secretary of Defense to analyze this 
alternative fully by the end of January.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to withhold.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, what is the question of the Senator? The 
Senate is anticipating voting now on the Nunn amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am just awaiting an amendment I will offer. I just 
wanted a chance to discuss the amendment so I would not take up the 
time of the Senate unduly.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 4367, As Amended

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I think we are ready to vote on the 
underlying Nunn-Hutchison-Bradley amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 4367, as amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] 
and the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] are necessary absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?

[[Page S7257]]

  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 182 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bumpers
     Hatfield
     Inhofe
  The amendment (No. 4367), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senate 
will proceed to the amendment by the Senator from Kentucky, and that 
the Senator from Vermont will participate in that. Following 
disposition of that amendment, the Senator from Virginia, on behalf of 
the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] will lay down an amendment. That 
is just to let the Senate know what the procedure will be. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 4112

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the amendment No. 4112 deals with impact 
aid. What I am offering today is basically a technical amendment to the 
Impact Aid Program. The House has added $33 million to this program. I 
am supporting this effort by the distinguished majority and minority 
leaders, Senators Boxer, Conrad, Craig, Dorgan, Exon, Gorton, Hatch, 
Inhofe, Levin, Murray, Pressler, Robb, and Warner. This amendment has 
the complete endorsement of the membership of the National Association 
of Federally Impacted Schools.
  Mr. President, since the Truman administration, the Federal 
Government has acknowledged its responsibility in assisting school 
districts educating federally connected children through the Impact Aid 
Program. This amendment addresses a change made to the Impact Aid 
Program during the 1994 authorization. Under the reauthorization, 
school districts would not be able to compute payments for children 
whose parents are civilian and work on Federal property unless a school 
district enrolled at least 2,000 of these children and only if such 
enrollment constitutes 15 percent of the school district's total 
enrollment.
  This change is arbitrary and unfair. What about a school district 
that has a small total enrollment, but of which 25 percent are 
Government employees? Or a district that has over 3,000 of these 
children, but because of the school's large size, this represents 
perhaps only 10 to 13 percent of its total enrollment?
  Mr. President, the amendment I offer today would restore some measure 
of equity and would recognize the impact that the Federal Government 
has in these communities by lowering this threshold to 1,000 civilian 
students or 10 percent of a school district's total enrollment. For 
those of you who are not familiar with this, because the Impact Aid 
Program is not fully funded, school districts must use a complicated 
formula for calculating the payments they will receive, also known as 
their learning opportunity threshold payment.
  This amendment would allow 421 school districts nationwide to 
calculate payment for their civilian students. However, of this number, 
13 school districts already are eligible to calculate their civilian 
students by meeting the 2,000 and 15-percent threshold set during the 
1994 reauthorization.
  While this amendment affects 14,000 weighted Federal student units in 
the remaining 409 school districts, my colleagues should be aware that 
of those 409 school districts, 282 already are eligible to qualify for 
some form of basic support from section 8003 without their civilian 
students. The remaining 127 school districts would be able to reenter 
the Section 8003 Program. These 127 school districts enroll 2,743 
weighted Federal student units.
  Although some may assume that if additional students are added to the 
program it will cost more, the actual impact of this amendment on 
existing school district payments is negligible. Short of fully funding 
this program, no matter how much money the Impact Aid Program receives 
in fiscal year 1997, the fact that the new need-based program will be 
fully implemented means that of the 1,570 school districts in the 
Section 8003 Program, 1,200 will receive some varying degree of 
decrease in payments in order to fully fund the 250 districts 
classified as high-need school districts.
  If the intent of the 1994 reauthorization was to target the high-need 
school districts, then that is exactly what will happen with or without 
this amendment. The amendment I offer helps minimize the loss the 
remaining districts will see due to the phase-in of this new need-based 
formula by allowing them to calculate payments for their civilian 
students.
  In fact, even at level funding, the National Association of Federally 
Impacted Schools estimates that every school district will see their 
full learning opportunity threshold payment, even with the change to 
1,000 civilian students or 10-percent total enrollment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important change which has the 
full support of our impact aid schools.
  This amendment restores some measure--I underscore--some of the 
equity and recognizes the impact that the Federal Government has on 
these communities by lowering the threshold to 1,000 civilian students 
or 10 percent of the school district's total enrollment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased go support this important 
impact aid amendment by my distinguished colleague from Kentucky, 
Senator Wendell Ford.
  Throughout my 17\1/2\ years in Congress, I have worked to preserve 
the Impact Aid Program. Local school districts have no choice but to 
bear the costs of educating federally connected children whose parents 
live and/or work on Federal installations. These families are either 
fully or partially exempt from contributing to the local tax base, and 
the Impact Aid Program attempts to compensate school districts 
accordingly.
  This amendment seeks to restore an important component of impact aid 
funding which was significantly restricted as a part of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act reauthorization bill of 1994. Under that 
legislation, an arbitrary eligibility threshold was established for the 
children of civil service families when the parents work on tax-exempt 
Federal properties such as military bases. With that new threshold, 
school divisions cannot be compensated by impact aid unless these civil 
service children equal a population of both 2,000 and 15 percent of 
total enrollment.
  For the last 2 years, school divisions which no longer meet this test 
have been grandfathered at 85 percent of their former payment. That 
protection expires this year, and without legislative action, a number 
of key school divisions in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia will 
begin to suffer funding shortfalls.
  That is why I welcome this amendment by my colleague from Kentucky to 
set a new, more flexible standard of 1,000 students or 10 percent of 
enrollment. This presents a far more reasonable threshold for local 
schools when they are faced with the responsibility of educating large 
numbers of civil service children whose families work at tax-exempt 
Federal facilities.
  I am pleased that this amendment is supported by the National 
Association of Federally Impacted Schools [NAFIS] whose president, Mr. 
John

[[Page S7258]]

Forkenbrock, has provided such leadership in strengthening education 
for federally connected children and the schools they attend.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and encourage all of my colleagues 
to support this important amendment.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am proud to coauthor this amendment 
with Senator Ford. This small change in the impact aid formula corrects 
a large discrepancy in the program.
  Current law discriminates against small districts, which are often 
located in rural areas. Districts can be eligible for impact aid based 
on the number of civilian b kids in the district. These children have 
parents who either work or live on Federal land. A district is eligible 
for impact aid if it has at least 2,000 students and 15 percent of the 
students are civilian b children.
  The amendment before us today would allow districts to qualify for 
the program if the district has at least 1,000 children or 10 percent 
of the students are civilian b children. Changing ``and'' to ``or'' is 
an important distinction for small districts. Mr. President, few school 
districts in South Dakota have 2,000 students. Small districts are no 
less federally impacted than large ones. They are equally deserving of 
impact aid funds.
  This amendment would allow additional districts into the program, but 
it would not decrease payments to current section 8003 schools. This 
section of the program received an increased appropriation last year, 
so we are working with a larger-sized pie than in previous years. 
Additionally, payments to all schools in section 8003 will be 
reconfigured when the hold harmless provision for this section expires 
in fiscal year 1997. Many school districts will receive lower payments 
when the formula agreed to in the 1994 reauthorization is fully phased 
in. The drop in payments to these schools frees up additional dollars 
for the small districts gaining eligibility with this amendment.
  This is a fairness issue. I am pleased that small school districts 
will now receive equal support. This amendment enjoys widespread, 
bipartisan support. I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting 
it today.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle, I have long supported impact aid. This program 
appropriately reimburses local school districts for the cost of 
educating the children of Federal employees who do not contribute to 
the local tax base because they live or work on Federal property. 
Moreover 17 million children benefit from impact aid. Now, when I think 
of impact aid, I typically think of the child whose parent serves in 
the military, or the child who lives on an Indian reservation, yet 
there is another group of children who rightly are served by impact 
aid. These are students whose parents may not live on Federal property, 
but work on Federal property--property that is not generating tax 
support for the local schools. These children are provided for by the 
civilian b portion of the program.
  Prior to an amendment being added to the Improving America's Schools 
Act 2 years ago, a district received a civilian b payment as long as it 
met basic eligibility requirements. This amendment required that a 
district enroll a minimum of 2,000 civilian b children and that this 
enrollment must equal 15 percent of the district's total student 
population. This effectively eliminated many small school districts 
with less than 2,000 students in their entire district, that 
nonetheless serve a large percentage of Federal employees' children. 
The inequity of this formula adversely impacted a number of small 
school districts in Washington State. For example, according to 
statistics provided by the Department of Education, the Grand Coulee 
Dam School District's total student population is 796 students, 328 of 
whom, are children of civilian Federal employees. In spite of the fact 
that 40 percent of this districts student population is made up of 
Federal employees children, under the current formula, this school 
district is not eligible for civilian b funding.
  The Bremerton School District isn't as small as Grand Coulee Dam 
School District, but it has a similar problem. In Bremerton, WA, a 
number of civilians are employed to support the naval base operations. 
While these civilians do not work for an employer that contributes to 
the local tax base in the same manner other local businesses do, the 
Bremerton district's schools serve these children who make up 20 
percent of the total student enrollment in the school district. 
Although Bremerton meets the 20-percent criteria, the district falls 
short of the 2,000 student requirement. Thus, under the current formula 
Bremerton School District is not eligible for civilian b funds. Is this 
school district less worthy of funding--merely because it does not fit 
into the criteria--I would argue not.
  I am certainly not opposed to establishing criteria for eligibility 
for Federal programs; in fact, I think it is imperative we do so. But 
that determination should be made fairly. School districts who are 
significantly impacted by the Federal Government's presence should be 
reimbursed for the local tax contributions they would otherwise 
receive. For this reason, I support Senator Ford's efforts to restore 
equity to the eligibility requirements for this program.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this part of the amendment is acceptable. I 
understand that my friend from Vermont has an amendment in the second 
degree that also will be accepted. So I yield the floor so my friend 
from Vermont can offer his amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                Amendment No. 4417 To Amendment No. 4112

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to make certain Impact 
                             Aid payments)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have an amendment to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will reported.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] for himself and Mr. 
     Pell, proposes amendment numbered 4417 to amendment No. 4112.

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

       On page 1, strike line 6 through line 2 on page 2 and 
     insert the following:
     7703(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2000 and such number equals or exceeds 
     15'' and inserting ``1000 or such number equals or exceeds 
     10''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, except that notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this title the Secretary shall not make a 
     payment computed under this paragraph for a child described 
     in subparagraph (F) or (G) of paragraph (1) who is associated 
     with Federal property used for Department of Defense 
     activities unless funds for such payment are made available 
     to the Secretary from funds available to the Secretary of 
     Defense'' before the period.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, my amendment just establishes some 
equity in covering the cost generated by the amendment of the Senator 
from Kentucky. My amendment, requires the Department of Defense to pay 
the increase in cost--a small amount; about $11 million--incurred by 
the additional military dependents who would become eligible for impact 
aid under the Ford amendment.
  The underlying amendment offered by my colleague from Kentucky 
broadens the eligibility criteria for the impact aid program. In 1994, 
during the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, Congress recognized the need to prioritize scarce 
education dollars and hence targeted funds to the most needy. In the 
case of the impact aid, we set up a stricter standard to reimburse 
districts for those students whose parents are employed on Federal 
property but do not live on such property.
  I have some misgivings about using this bill to alter education 
policy. But if we want to do so, then so be it. The amendment that I am 
offering would simply require the Department of Defense to pay the 
expense of the amendment for children associated with military 
activities.
  The changes made in 1994 eliminated impact aid payments to certain 
districts. By going back and broadening this definition we will 
increase the number of eligible districts from approximately 13 to 421.
  Without my amendment the increased costs will come, not from the 
Department of Defense, but from the Department of Education. One area

[[Page S7259]]

where the Department of Defense has traditionally enjoyed a reprieve 
from carrying its full weight is that of impact aid. Impact aid was 
designed to offset costs that local communities incur in the education 
of military dependents or civilians working on military bases because 
these families are exempt from certain State and local taxes. This is a 
cost of our national defense program.
  Mr. President, DOD has accepted the responsibility of bearing the 
full costs of educating military dependents overseas--it is logical 
they should assume responsibility for offsetting the costs that occur 
at home.
  There is clear precedence for this. Currently, the Department of 
Defense provides supplemental funding for impact aid schools, between 
$10 and $50 million--$30 million in fiscal year 1996. This last 
provision is in the DOD authorization bill and allows the Secretary of 
Defense to provide supplemental funding for local education agencies 
[LEA's] in which military activity places a unique burden on the LEA.
  This amendment follows this policy. We must, for the true defense of 
this country, serve our children.
  I understand this amendment is acceptable.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the 
second-degree amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Senator 
Jeffords. It represents a small, yet very significant step in the 
direction of placing the funding of impact aid upon the agency 
responsible for the Federal property.
  Impact aid is assistance provided because Federal property is taken 
from the tax rolls. It is compensation, and really should not be placed 
in the category of educational assistance. If the property is a 
military installation, the responsibility for compensation should rest 
with the Department of Defense, not the Department of Education. If the 
property is public land used for parks and recreational purposes, the 
responsibility for compensation should rest with an agency such as the 
Department of the Interior, not the Department of Education.
  Impact aid is also general aid. It is not tied to the need to improve 
basic skills, upgrade professional development, strengthen educational 
research, or open opportunities for a college education. Its only 
relationship to education is because the property tax is too often and 
unfortunately a major source of support for education at the State and 
local level. Removal of that source of funding has an impact upon the 
total resources available to fund education in community after 
community throughout America. I would contend, therefore, that 
compensation for this lost resource should come from the agency or 
department responsible for removal of this land from the tax rolls.
  With respect to this particular amendment, I understand that about 60 
percent of the additional districts that would be eligible for impact 
aid are related to the armed services. Thus, under the provisions of 
the Jeffords amendment, the Secretary of Defense would be required to 
cover that amount, which I understand is 60 percent of $11 to $18 
million.
  My own opinion is that this amendment represents the direction in 
which we should be moving in regard to the entire Impact Aid Program. 
As I have said, it is only a small step, but it is also a very 
important one. I would strongly urge my colleagues to join Senator 
Jeffords and me in approving this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the second-degree 
amendment?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the second-degree amendment 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4417) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. I encourage the approval of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 4112, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 4112), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank my friend from 
Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Virginia is recognized to offer an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4418

(Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for the construction of a facility for 
  military dependent children with disabilities at Lackland Air Force 
                              Base, Texas)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Alaska [Mr. 
Stevens], I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for Mr. Stevens, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4418.

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

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

     SEC. 1072. FACILITY FOR MILITARY DEPENDENT CHILDREN WITH 
                   DISABILITIES, LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS.

       (a) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     by this Act for the Department of the Air Force, $2,000,000 
     may be available for the construction at Lackland Air Force 
     Base, Texas, of a facility (and supporting infrastructure) to 
     provide comprehensive care and rehabilitation services to 
     children with disabilities who are dependents of members of 
     the Armed Forces.
       (b) Transfer of Funds.--Subject to subsection (c), the 
     Secretary of the Air Force may grant the funds available 
     under subsection (a) to the Children's Association for 
     Maximum Potential (CAMP) for use by the association to defray 
     the costs of designing and constructing the facility referred 
     to in subsection (a).
       (c) Lease of Facility.--(1) The Secretary may not make a 
     grant of funds under subsection (b) until the Secretary and 
     the association enter into an agreement under which the 
     Secretary leases to the association the facility to be 
     constructed using the funds.
       (2)(A) The term of the lease under paragraph (1) may not be 
     less than 25 years.
       (B) As consideration for the lease of the facility, the 
     association shall assume responsibility for the operation and 
     maintenance of the facility, including the costs of such 
     operation and maintenance.
       (3) The Secretary may require such additional terms and 
     conditions in connection with the lease as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this effort has been raised by several of 
my colleagues. I believe it has great merit. The camp program addresses 
the needs of children challenged with disabilities that are not easily 
addressed. This includes children with Downs Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, 
and Autism.
  This program meets an urgent need at Lackland Air Force Base. We are 
addressing this need in a unique way. We will consider this effort when 
we bring the defense appropriation bill to the floor.
  The commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center, which is located at 
Lackland Air Force Base, has indicated the medical center has a close 
association with the camp program. Most of his staff are volunteers in 
the program. He views the program as an outgrowth of the pediatric 
department at Wilford Hall.
  The base commander of Lackland Air Force Base also supports the 
program. We asked him how he deals with the liability he personally 
might incur. He indicated that the benefits outweigh his risks.
  The Senator from Ohio stated that there was no agreement between the 
Air Force and the camp program. The base commander has informed the 
Senate Appropriations Committee that there is, in fact, an agreement 
between the base commander and the director of the camp program.
  The camp program is now housed in three 2-story barracks. This 
creates significant hazards with disabled children. Also, the manpower 
required for three buildings will be reduced with this new building. 
For instance, they will only need one nurse instead of three. These 
barracks are scheduled for demolition. As soon as this facility is 
built these barracks will come down.

[[Page S7260]]

  This program is not yet endorsed by the Department. I believe we must 
address the special needs of military families. This program is an 
effort to do just that.
  I appreciate the willingness of the managers of this bill and urge 
the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is with great regret that I rise in 
opposition to this amendment. The amendment would establish, in my 
view, a dangerous precedent for future grants of defense dollars to 
private organizations selected by the Congress.
  There is no question that the purpose of the facility which would be 
constructed with these funds is a worthy one. Caring for the dependent 
children of our military personnel, particularly those with 
disabilities, should be a high-priority concern of the military 
Services.
  However, I am concerned about the process by which this project has 
been identified. As I understand it, a private organization called the 
Children's Association for Maximum Potential [CAMP] developed an 
unsolicited proposal to build a facility at Lackland Air Force Base for 
the specialized care of military dependent children with disabilities. 
CAMP had been unsuccessful in raising sufficient private contributions, 
and requested assistance from the appropriations committees. This 
amendment, offered by the Chairman of the Senate Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, would authorize the grant funds requested by CAMP.
  Let me stress again that I am not opposed to providing facilities for 
the care of disabled children. But I want to ensure that the facilities 
we do provide are the highest priority and best suited to take care of 
the largest possible group of these children. I am not confident, even 
with the endorsement of the Department of Defense, that the $2 million 
to be provided for this particular program is the best use of funds to 
serve this need.
  Finally, I am concerned about the precedent we may establish by 
authorizing the expenditure of $2 million from the Air Force budget to 
construct a building for the use of a private entity. These projects 
should be considered within the military construction and family 
housing accounts, not in a new process outside the scrutiny of other 
priorities, such as child care centers, hospitals, and the like.
  Mr. President, I regretfully announce that I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Virginia on behalf of the Senator from 
Alaska. I hate very much to do that because this is a program that is 
undoubtedly worthwhile, but I do object to the process by which we are 
doing this. There has not been a definition given yet by the proponents 
of this as to what the bill actually provides. Let me make some 
comments on that.
  What this amendment does, as I understand it, is direct the Secretary 
of the Air Force to provide a $2 million grant to a program called 
CAMP, Children's Association for Maximum Potential, and this $2 million 
would be for construction of a support services facility for military 
dependent children with disabilities and their families at Lackland Air 
Force Base.
  Certainly, that is a most noble intent. I do not question the intent 
of it at all. What I do object to is bringing this up as part of the 
defense bill without it having been through any screening whatever, 
without having been submitted as part of the defense budget. I am sure 
that every single one of us has a similar situation that we would like 
to take benefit of, also, that would be similar to this particular 
program.
  The CAMP Program was established in 1980 as a nonprofit agency. What 
it does is provide comprehensive services to families with special 
needs. Currently, CAMP has 40 employees, as I understand it, and a $1.3 
billion budget. It operates on Lackland in three World War II vintage 
barracks. Lackland officials have a base revitalization program, and 
they are demolishing old buildings. These three buildings are among 
those which are slated to be demolished. They have outlived their 
construction life cycles. They are costly to repair and maintain. The 
facilities in which CAMP operates are slated for demolition. The Air 
Force has identified a vacant parcel of property near the base medical 
center as a potential new site for CAMP. This $2 million grant, along 
with a private donation of $500,000, would enable CAMP to construct a 
new facility and continue its program to support military families with 
disabled children.
  The facility to be built with the grant money would be leased to CAMP 
by the Air Force under a 25-year lease agreement. As consideration for 
this lease, CAMP would assume responsibility for and costs associated 
with operating and maintaining this facility, as I understand it. 
Granting this facility would enable CAMP to continue their support of 
military families and special needs.
  The grant is simply a substitute for the good will of the Air Force 
in providing an operating space for CAMP in these old World War II 
structures. We do need special legislation to authorize the Air Force 
to use funds in this manner. However, arguing against the amendment, 
there is no agreement between the Air Force and CAMP for use of the 
facilities at all. It would benefit a small group and a specific site.
  The money we would be proposing to give to them does not cover the 
cost of the new facility. Most of all, we opened a floodgate to 
everybody who has a meritorious nonprofit group operating on their base 
in support of whatever good purpose, and we are not giving them a fair 
shot at the same thing.
  On the Senate Armed Services Committee, we have denied requests for 
DOD funds to assist in construction activities related to all sorts of 
things--military monuments, memorials, buildings for children on 
bases--and we have not funded those. While I know this is for a very 
good purpose, and I realize if we put this to a vote, there would not 
probably be very many votes that would be opposed to this idea of 
continuing help for dependent disabled children, children with special 
difficulties, on the base at Lackland, I do not propose to call for a 
rollcall vote on this amendment because I have no doubt about what the 
vote would probably be. The intention of the amendment is very noble 
and for a worthy cause, but for us to start out like this without 
having been through the budgeting process, without it having been 
through hearings, without having it considered by the committee or the 
Armed Services Committee and in competition with other projects like 
this at all, I question whether we should be doing this.

  The problem with it, then, is that it uses the defense budget to fund 
what may be considered to be a high-priority program but it is not a 
budgeted defense program item. I cannot support the principle here of 
taking millions out of the defense budget to fund it. Every single one 
of us has a program in his or her State that would benefit greatly if 
we simply handed out funds like this on the military bases. Many, many, 
nonprofit organizations do things on the bases that we would like to 
support, yet we do not do that because if we raided the defense budget 
every time that occurred, we would soon be out of money. The problem 
with that approach is there would be little left if each Member of this 
body came to the floor to collect the defense funds necessary to help 
out every nonprofit program like the very valuable CAMP Program that 
needed funding.
  I prefer to see with proposals like this that are put in, the 
Pentagon give their opinion as to what they are doing on the particular 
base, send that word over, and we take care of it in committee 
structure, compare them with others, and allot them money for programs 
like this. I am very happy to support them and work with the people to 
do it. But to bring them on the floor and make it competitive that we 
are trying to get something for individual bases for nonprofit 
organizations is something I have a lot of difficulty supporting.
  Let me conclude by stating I find it a bit ironic that the same 
majority that is cutting necessary domestic discretionary funding in 
order to add $12 billion to our defense budget is agreeing to an 
amendment like this, without any hearings or without any further 
information. It just says we need $2 million to give to a nonprofit 
organization, so we appropriated or we authorized here on the Senate 
floor.
  I am very much in support--let me go back to where I started my 
statement. I am very much in favor of the intent,

[[Page S7261]]

certainly, on our bases. We want to support organizations like this. 
They are set up and they operate as nonprofit organizations. To have 
the money come out of our defense budget now to go into supporting 
these nonprofit organizations, no matter how good they are, just 
without any hearings, without conferring with other projects that we 
might prefer to see taxpayer-appropriated funds go into, is to me the 
wrong approach here. I would like to see these things gone into on a 
little more studied basis.
  Senator McCain and I have taken the lead over the past 4 years in 
trying to hold down things like this where we add things on the floor, 
add them in the committee that were never requested, never had 
hearings, never knew anything about them. Granted, this is not a budget 
buster that goes into billions. It is $2 million. But you add this up 
with every $2 million that I would like to have and the Senator from 
Virginia would like to have and everyone else would like to have, and 
it gets into quite a pile of money. We are taking it directly out of 
the defense budget to do this. Granted, it is in support of our 
military personnel at Lackland Air Force Base, but this is the only 
organization of its kind we are singling out for a $2 million grant.
  I am not going to ask for a rollcall vote on this, but I do wish to 
be recorded as being opposed to this amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4418) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I would like to identify myself with the 
remarks of Senator Glenn on the previously adopted amendment.
  I know it is a noble cause. But I think this is a bad precedent, and 
I think we need to carefully consider what we do in this kind of case.
  There are thousands of other organizations out there that would like 
exactly the same treatment.
  I voted on that on the voice vote, and I identify my remarks with 
those of the Senator from Ohio.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Kentucky seeking recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my friend, the 
floor leader, from Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 4419

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot 
     program to identify and demonstrate a feasible alternative to 
           demilitarization of assembled chemical munitions)

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment on pilot projects for 
identified and demonstrated feasible alternatives to demilitarization 
of assembled chemical munitions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside, and the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for himself and Mr. 
     Brown proposes an amendment numbered 4419.

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

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

     SEC. 113. DEMILITARIZATION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL MUNITIONS.

       (a) Pilot Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct 
     a pilot program to identify and demonstrate feasible 
     alternatives to incineration for the demilitarization of 
     assembled chemical munitions.
       (b) Program Requirements.--(1) The Secretary of Defense 
     shall designate an executive agent to carry out the pilot 
     program required to be conducted under subsection (a).
       (2) The executive agent shall--
       (A) be an officer or executive of the United States 
     Government;
       (B) be accountable to the Secretary of Defense; and
       (C) not be, or have been, in direct or immediate control of 
     the chemical weapon stockpile demilitarization program 
     established by 1412 of the Department of Defense 
     Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521) or the alternative 
     disposal process program carried out under sections 174 and 
     175 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     1993 (Public Law 102-484; 50 U.S.C. 1521 note). 
     (3) The executive agent may--
       (A) carry out the pilot program directly;
       (B) enter into a contract with a private entity to carry 
     out the pilot program; or
       (C) transfer funds to another department or agency of the 
     Federal Government in order to provide for such department or 
     agency to carry out the pilot program.
       (4) A department or agency that carries out the pilot 
     program under paragraph (3)(C) may not, for purposes of the 
     pilot program, contract with or competitively select the 
     organization within the Army that exercises direct or 
     immediate management control over either program referred to 
     in paragraph (2)(C).
       (5) The pilot program shall terminate not later than 
     September 30, 2000.
       (c) Annual Report.--Not later than December 15 of each year 
     in which the Secretary carries out the pilot program, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the activities 
     under the pilot program during the preceding fiscal year.
       (d) Evaluation and Report.--Not later than December 31, 
     2000, the Secretary of Defense shall--
       (1) evaluate each demilitarization alternative identified 
     and demonstrated under the pilot program to determine whether 
     that alternative--
       (A) is a safe and cost efficient as incineration for 
     disposing of assembled chemical munitions; and
       (B) meets the requirements of section 1412 of the 
     Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986; and
       (2) submit to Congress a report containing the evaluation.
       (e) Limitation on Long Lead Contracting.--(1) 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary may not enter into 
     any contract for the purchase of long lead materials 
     considered to be baseline incineration specific materials for 
     the construction of an incinerator at any site in Kentucky or 
     Colorado within one year of the date of enactment of this act 
     or thereafter until the executive agent designated for the 
     pilot program submits an application for such permits as are 
     necessary under the law of the State of Kentucky or the law 
     of the State of Colorado, as the case may be, for the 
     construction at that site of a plant for demilitarization of 
     assembled chemical munitions by means of an alternative to 
     incineration.
       (2) Provided, however, the Secretary may enter into a 
     contract described in paragraph (1) beginning 60 days after 
     the date on which the Secretary submits to Congress--
       (A) the report required by subsection (d)(2); and
       (B) the certification of the executive agent that there 
     exists no alternative technology as safe and cost efficient 
     as incineration for demilitarizing chemical munitions at non-
     bulk sites that can meet the requirements of section 1412 of 
     the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986.
       (f) Assembled Chemical Munition Defined.--For the purpose 
     of this section, the term ``assembled chemical munition'' 
     means an entire chemical munition, including components 
     parts, chemical agent, propellant, and explosive.
       (g) Funding.--(1) Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated under section 107, $60,000,000 shall be 
     available for the pilot program under this section. Such 
     funds may not be derived from funds to be made available 
     under the chemical demilitarization program at bulk sites.
       (2) Funds made available for the pilot program pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall be made available to the executive agent 
     for use for the pilot program.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this is an issue that hits home for me. We 
have a facility in Richmond, KY, known as the Lexington Blue Grass Army 
Depot. This facility houses the most dangerous chemical agents known to 
mankind such as GB, VX, and mustard agents in various projectiles and 
rockets. Given the extremely hazardous nature of these agents, my 
primary concern must be for the health and safety of Kentuckians, and 
all Americans who live near these obsolete weapons.
  And I am not alone. Acting out of the same concerns, the State of 
Kentucky has put into place rigorous regulations governing the permit 
process for operating an incinerator to destroy chemical weapons. To 
date, the Army has failed to get a permit from the Kentucky State EPA 
because the Army has failed in its application to meet several basic 
tests, including providing sufficient evidence that: Neither humans nor 
the environment will be harmed by emissions from the incinerator; 
burning the chemical weapons would be safer than any possible 
alternative technologies; should the incinerator malfunction, enough of 
the nerve gas would be destroyed instead of

[[Page S7262]]

released; and during a worst-case scenario accident, there are adequate 
plans in place for evacuating the public.
  In 1981, the Army chose the baseline incineration process as the best 
and safest method for destroying chemical weapons. Yet just this month, 
15 years later, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee held a hearing 
on whether incineration adequately protects the health and safety of 
the public and the workers.
  I fail to understand how the Army can continue along this path when 
legitimate questions are still being raised and are still not being 
adequately answered. We're now finding that many of the alternatives 
previously reviewed and rejected for the destruction of chemical 
weapons have been developed to the point where they may not only be 
considered viable options, but may be better choices than incineration.
  Unfortunately, the Army's actions have the appearance of moving 
forward simply for the sake of sticking to the original plan. I 
understand the Army's concern over already investing billions of 
dollars in the incineration process. But we are dealing with the health 
and safety of our citizens. And when it comes to issues of health and 
safety our citizens deserve the best.
  To ensure this happens, Senator Brown and I offer this amendment to 
the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization bill, requiring the 
Department of Defense to conduct a 3-year pilot program. Under the 
pilot program the Department of Defense will determine if there is a 
feasible alternative to incineration for the disposal of chemical 
munitions. The amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to report to 
Congress 6 months after the program has been completed on whether there 
are alternative processes that are as safe and as cost-efficient as 
baseline incineration. Based on this report we can determine whether 
baseline incineration or an alternative method is the best way to 
demilitarize the assembled chemical munitions at the Lexington/Blue 
Grass Army Depot and the Pueblo Chemical Depot.
  Let me add that while the Army has a review underway at this time, 
that review only examines the use of these technologies for bulk sites. 
Because the Lexington Blue Grass Army Depot and the Pueblo Chemical 
Depot house munitions, the Army's current study is irrelevant to these 
sites.
  This amendment would direct the Department of Defense to appoint an 
executive agent to lead this program who has not been in direct or 
immediate control of the chemical weapon stockpile demilitarization 
program. I strongly believe for this program to be successful it will 
need new blood, an individual who is objective, forward thinking, and 
not wedded to the incineration process.
  Second, while this pilot program is in effect, this amendment 
prohibits the expenditures of funds for the construction of 
incinerators at both the Lexington Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky 
and the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado for 1 year. Should it be 
determined that there is no alternative technology then funds may be 
expended for the construction of incinerators.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful the pilot program will include a 
decisionmaking process that will actively involve the State and local 
governments and local community groups, so that all parties involved in 
this process can reach a consensus on where pilot testing will take 
place. With consensus I believe there will be a future for alternative 
technologies in chemical demilitarization, and we can safely proceed 
with destruction of obsolete chemical weapons.
  This amendment specifies that of the funds authorized to be 
appropriated for chemical demilitarization for fiscal year 1997, $60 
million will be set aside to conduct this pilot program for nonbulk 
sites, and that none of the $60 million will come from the funds for 
the alternative technologies bulk pilot program.
  Clearly something must be done. With good reason, the State of 
Kentucky will not issue a permit to the Army. But, it would also be a 
mistake to simply walk away from the problem. I believe my amendment 
makes sense for both the Army, the Kentuckians who live in that area, 
and for other depots that will eventually confront this same problem.

  Mr. President, without this amendment it is doubtful that the Army 
will ever be able to get its permit to incinerate munitions in 
Kentucky, let me bring to your attention the following:

       Section 6929 of title 42 of the United States Code, 
     specifically recognizes and reserves to the Commonwealth the 
     authority to impose reasonable restrictions directly relating 
     to public health and safety with respect to the management of 
     hazardous wastes beyond the minimum standards established 
     under federal law.

  Furthermore, Kentucky State law requires that:

       In considering alternatives to the proposed activity, the 
     cabinet shall affirmatively consider all reasonable 
     alternatives, including alternatives that could be developed, 
     and shall issue a permit only where it finds by clear and 
     convincing evidence that no alternative treatment or disposal 
     option, including transportation, exists or could be 
     developed that would provide greater protection against 
     exposure or harm to the public or environment.

  How can the State of Kentucky under these conditions ever issue a 
permit when the Army has yet to look at alternative technologies for 
nonbulk sites?
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure 
that the Department of Defense moves forward in a way that will not 
place a single American at risk.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list of organizations supporting 
this amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Groups Supporting the CWWG, on Ford Amendment to S. 1745

       Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund Citizens Coalition: 
     Joppa, Maryland; Alabama Conservancy: Anniston, Alabama; 
     Arkansas Fairness Council: Little Rock, Arkansas; ACTION: 
     Circleville, Ohio; Action for a Clean Environment: Alto, 
     Georgia; Artists For Earth: Berea, Kentucky; Appalachian 
     Science in the Public Interest: Livingston, Kentucky; Arms 
     Control Research Center: San Francisco, California; Bass 
     Anglers Sportsman Society: Montgomery, Alabama; Burn Busters: 
     Anniston, Alabama.
       Cancer Registry--Dioxin Research: Globe, Arizona; Center 
     for Economic Conversion: Berkeley, California; Central 
     Kentucky AIM Support Group: Lexington, Kentucky; Champaign-
     Urbana Physicians for Social Responsibility: Mason City, 
     Illinois; Chicago Media Watch Environmental Task Force: 
     Evanston, Illinois; Citizens Clearinghouse on Hazardous 
     Waste: Falls Church, Virginia; Citizens Energy Council: 
     Hewitt, New Jersey; Citizens Environmental Organizations of 
     Bedford Co., Clearville, Pennsylvania; Citizens for a Healthy 
     Environment: Waveland, Mississippi; Citizens for Responsible 
     Fort McCoy Growth: Sparta, Wisconsin; Citizens for Safe Water 
     Around Badger: Merrimac, Wisconsin; Coalition for Jobs and 
     the Environment: Abingdon, Virginia; Coalition for Research 
     Ethics and Accountability: Santa Fe, New Mexico; Columbia 
     River United: Hood River, Oregon; Citizens Against 
     Incineration in Newport: Newport, Indiana; Citizens for 
     Environmental Quality: Hermiston, Oregon; Citizens for Safe 
     Weapons Disposal: Pueblo, Colorado; Coalition for Safe 
     Disposal: Worton, Maryland; Common Ground: Berea, Kentucky; 
     Concerned Citizens for Maryland's Environment: Bel Air, 
     Maryland; Concerned Citizens of Madison County: Richmond, 
     Kentucky; Center for the Biology of Natural Systems: Queens, 
     New York; Center for Environmental Health Studies: Boston, 
     Massachusetts; Center for Responsive Politics: Washington, 
     DC; Central Kentucky Council for Peace and Justice: 
     Lexington, Kentucky; Citizen Alert: Las Vegas, Nevada; 
     Citizens to Save Our Environment: St. Louis, Missouri.
       Desert Citizens Against Pollution: Rosamond, California; 
     Don't Waste Arizona, Flagstaff, Az.; Downwinders, Inc.: Salt 
     Lake City, Utah; Earth and Spirit Council: Portland, Oregon; 
     Eastern Cherokee Defense League: Cherokee, North Carolina; 
     Ecology Center: Berkeley, California; Edmonds Institute: 
     Edmonds, Washington; Environmental Research Foundation: 
     Annapolis, Maryland; Earth Friendly of Huntsville: 
     Huntsville, Alabama; Environmental Compliance Oversight 
     Corporation.
       Families Concerned About Nerve Gas Incineration: Anniston, 
     Alabama; Farm Aid, Cambridge Mass.; Franklin County Voters 
     for Clean Air; Columbus, Ohio; Friends of the Earth: 
     Washington, DC; Friends and Native Americans: Arlington, 
     Massachusetts; Friends of the Upper Willamette River, Inc: 
     Corvallis, Oregon; Georgia Chapter, 20/20 Vision: Sautee, 
     Georgia; Gateway Green Alliance: St. Louis, Missouri; Global 
     Greens-USA, Washington, D.C.; GreenLaw: Washington, DC; 
     Greenpeace International, Amsterdam; Greenpeace USA, 
     Washington, D.C.; Greenpeace Midwest: Chicago, Illinois; 
     Greenpeace Pacific Campaign; Greenpeace Portland: Portland, 
     Oregon; Greenpeace South: Atlanta, Georgia; Greenpeace West: 
     Seattle, Washington; Government Accountability Project: 
     Washington, DC; Groups Allied to Stop Pollution: Wilmer, 
     Texas; Hawaii's Thousands Friends; Hoosier Environmental 
     Council: Indianapolis, Indiana;

[[Page S7263]]

     H.O.P.E. Alive!: Pueblo, Colorado; Humane Society of the 
     United States, Washington, D.C.
       Institute for the Advancement of Hawaiian Affairs; Indiana 
     Citizen Action: Indianapolis, Indiana; Indigenous 
     Environmental Network: Bemidji, Minnesota; Institute for 
     Agriculture and Trade Policy; Institute for Energy and 
     Environmental Research, Washington, D.C.; Institute for 
     Science and Interdiciplinary Studies: Amherst, Massachusetts; 
     International Fellowship of Reconciliation: Douglasville, 
     Georgia; International Physicians for the Prevention of 
     Nuclear War; International Social Ecology Network; Kentucky 
     Conservation Committee: Frankfort, Kentucky; Kentucky 
     Environmental Foundation, (CWWG Project) Berea, Ky.; 
     Kentuckians for the Commenwealth: Salyersville, Kentucky; 
     Kentucky Resources Council: Frankfort, Kentucky; Legal 
     Environmental Assistance Foundation: Tallahassee, Florida; 
     Maryland United for Peace and Justice: Bowie, Maryland; 
     Massachusetts Campaign to Clean Up Hazardous Waste: Boston, 
     Massachusetts; Military Toxics Project: Sabattus, Maine; 
     Newport Study Group: Newport, Indiana; Nuclear Free and 
     Independent Pacific; National Center for Environmental Health 
     Strategies: Voorhees, New Jersey; Network for Environmental 
     and Economic Responsibility: Nutley, New Jersey; NC Waste 
     Awareness and Reduction Network: Durham, North Carolina; 
     Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides: Eugene, 
     Oregon.
       Northwest Environmental Advocates: Portland, Oregon; 
     Nuclear Information and Resource Service: Washington, DC; 
     National Depleted Uranium Citizens Network; Oregon 
     Peaceworks: Salem, Oregon; Oregon Environmental Council: 
     Portland, Oregon; Pine Bluff for Safe Disposal: Pine Bluff, 
     Arkansas; Pacific Asia Council of Indigenous People, Hawaii; 
     Pacific Concerns Resource Center; Parkridge Area Residents 
     Take Action: Grove City, Ohio; People for Clean Air and 
     Water--El Pueblo: Hanford, California; People vs. a Chemical 
     Contained Environment: Jacksonville, Arkansas; Project on 
     Demilitarization and Democracy: Washington DC; Pacific 
     Studies Center: Mt. View, California; Physicians for Social 
     Responsibility: Boston, Mass.; Progressive Alliance for 
     Community Empowerment: Albuquerque, New Mexico; Project 
     South: Knoxville, Tennessee; Reach for Unbleached: Whaletown, 
     British Columbia, Canada; Rhode Island Coalition for Peace 
     and Justice: Providence, Rhode Island; Rural Alliance for 
     Military Accountability, Oregon.
       Sangre de Cristo Chapt. of the Rocky Mtn. Sierra Club: 
     Pueblo, Colorado; Serving Alabama's Future Environment: 
     Anniston, Alabama; Sierra Club, Washington, D.C.; Sierra Club 
     Legal Defense Fund, San Francisco, Ca.; Snake River Alliance: 
     Boise, Idaho; South Bronx Clean Air Coalition: Bronx, New 
     York; Southern Organizing Committee: Atlanta, Georgia; Social 
     Concerns Office, Catholic Diocese of Jefferson City: J. City, 
     Missouri; St. Louis Archdiocese: St. Louis, Missouri; SEVA 
     Service Society, Palo Alto, Ca.; Tri-State Environmental 
     Council: East Liverpool, Ohio; Tooele County Clean Air 
     Coalition: Tooele, Utah; U.S. Public Interest Research Group: 
     NYC, NY; Utah Sierra Club: Salt Lake City, Utah; Valley 
     Citizens for a Safe Environment: Sunderland, Massachusetts; 
     Vietnam Agent Orange Victims--The Living Dead: High Ridge, 
     Missouri; Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation: Washington, 
     DC; Veterans for World Peace: Gainsville, Florida; Vietnam 
     Veterans of America: Little Rock, Arkansas; Women Concerned/
     Utahns United: Salt Lake City, Utah; Women's International 
     League for Peace and Freedom: Portland, Oregon; Western 
     Organization of Resource Councils, Butte, Montana; Working 
     Group on Community Right to Know, Washington, D.C.


                  chemical demilitarization amendment

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, why do we need this amendment?
  I am proposing that the Department of Defense set up a pilot program 
to review alternative technologies for the destruction of chemical 
munitions. Currently, the Army has a review underway that only examines 
the use of these technologies for bulk sites. The Lexington Blue Grass 
Army Depot and the Pueblo Chemical Depot are nonbulk sites that house 
munitions, so we need to examine the feasibility of using alternative 
technologies for nonbulk sites as well.
  Question: What are the unique provisions of this amendment?
  First, this amendment would direct the Department of Defense to 
appoint someone who hasn't been in direct, or immediate control of the 
chemical weapon stockpile demilitarization program. I strongly believe 
that this program needs new blood, an individual who is objective and 
not wedded to the incineration process.
  Second, this amendment prohibits the expenditures of funds for the 
construction of incinerators at both the Lexington Blue Grass Army 
Depot in Kentucky and at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado for 1 
year.
  Question: How do you know that there will not be local opposition to 
pilot testing an alternative technology?
  I am hopeful that the pilot program will include a decisionmaking 
process that will include State and local governments, local community 
groups and that all parties in this process will reach a consensus. 
With a consensus building process, I believe that there will be less 
local opposition to the pilot testing of an alternative technology, and 
in future years destruction of obsolete chemical weapons will be 
allowed to proceed.
  Question: Where will the pilot project take place?
  Site selection will be decided contingent on the technical merits of 
the technology chosen for evaluation and the best place for that 
technology to be tested.
  Question: What is the difference, if any, between your amendment and 
what is in the appropriations bill?
  There are several differences. First, based on Department of Defense 
and private sector estimates, I am asking for $60 million for a 3-year 
period to conduct this pilot project. The appropriation's language 
requests $40 million for the same study with no timeframe for the 
completion of the study. I believe it is critical to have a timeframe 
or the project may drag on. Furthermore, the appropriation language 
requires that at least two technologies can be reviewed, I believe this 
is micromanagement on the legislative level and that those decisions 
should be left to the experts doing the job.
  Question: Are we putting the communities in more danger by not going 
ahead with incineration? What about chemical munition leaks?
  Based on performance history of the baseline incineration process 
with its legal challenges and permits difficulties, the baseline 
incineration disposal approach will extend well beyond the existing 
2004 deadline and also beyond the 2007 anticipated chemical weapons 
convention deadline. On the other hand, I believe that alternative 
approaches may be easier to get permits and with fewer legal 
challenges. This amendment could expedite the common objective of safe, 
cost-effective expeditious disposal.
  I can understand the concern about aging munitions and the 
possibility of leaks, but according to the Department of Defense's 
interim status assessment for the chemical demilitarization program, 
the handling of the munitions to conduct a more thorough survey is also 
a source of risk that need not be incurred given the apparent slow rate 
of deterioration.
  Defense, in their report, also states: The rate of deterioration is 
not markedly increasing; there is no evidence of immediate danger from 
stockpile storage; the rocket stockpile could continue to be safely 
stored.
  The most recent evaluation performed by the Army in 1994 indicated 
that with even the most conservative assumptions, the probability of a 
rocket auto-ignition is less than one in a million before 2013.
  Mr. President, this legislation does not stop the Army from going 
forward with the baseline incineration program at sites other than 
Kentucky and Colorado. This legislation does not change the dates 
required by Congress for the destruction of our chemical weapons by 
2004. But let me point out to my colleagues that this date of 2004 has 
been changed three times by Congress. When the chemical treaty goes 
into effect, and I hope the Army is listening to this, the treaty calls 
for 10\1/2\ years for the destruction of chemical weapons, from the 
date the treaty is ratified. So, let's say, Mr. President, that the 
treaty is ratified by 65 countries in January 1997. We would have 10\1/
2\ years from 1997 to destroy our chemical weapons--but if we cannot do 
it in that timeframe then the treaty allows a country to ask for 5 
additional years. That would place the destruction date in the year 
2013.
  Mr. THURMOND. I have grave concerns about the impact of his amendment 
on the current program, which uses baseline incineration technology, to 
destroy the chemical stockpile. This amendment would bring the program 
to a halt.
  The amendment would direct the initiation of a pilot program on an 
unspecified alternate technology. As I understand it, pilot program 
testing is only initiated after basic technical efficacy has been 
demonstrated at either the laboratory or bench scale. There is

[[Page S7264]]

no independently verified evidence today to support legislation to 
direct the initiation of a pilot program.
  Mr. President, this legislation is fraught with requirements that 
will detrimentally impact the current destruction program.
  The administration is pushing the Senate to ratify the Chemical 
Weapons Convention. If this amendment were to pass, we would be unable 
to meet the requirements in the CWC to begin destruction of the 
stockpile within 2 years of entry into force of the treaty. We would 
also not be able to complete destruction of the stockpile within the 
10-year timeframe.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand, after the modifications, that 
both sides have agreed to this amendment. I am grateful.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to advise the Senate, in view of 
the modifications submitted by the Senator from Kentucky, that this 
amendment is acceptable on this side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4419) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I thank my friends.


                           Amendment No. 4415

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on the previous Conrad amendment on the B-
52's, we need to move to reconsider that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no motion to reconsider that 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is correct. Would it be appropriate to reconsider 
the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it would.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, could the Chair advise the Senate once 
again as to the request by the Senator from North Dakota and what the 
response was?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the previous Conrad amendment on B-52's 
that had been agreed to on both sides was not reconsidered and laid on 
the table. I was just going through that formality now.
  I have made the motion to reconsider. Mr. President, I move to 
reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this bill is moving along very speedily, 
and the managers anticipate that following the presentation by the 
distinguished majority leader and the Democratic leader of the 
unanimous-consent request that this bill will conclude today.
  Seeing no Senator seeking recognition, I ask unanimous consent that 
the Senator from Utah be recognized to make a statement not to exceed 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________