[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.
____________________