[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 98 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7269-S7277]
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.


                           Amendment No. 4423

   (Purpose: To increase by $17,000,000 the amount authorized to be 
  appropriated for Defense-wide activities for research, development, 
test, and evaluation in order to provide an additional $17,000,000 for 
Holloman Rocket Sled Test Track Upgrade program under the Central Test 
                   and Evaluation Investment Program)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I offer an 
amendment that authorizes an additional $17 million in the Central Test 
and Evaluation Investment Program for the Holloman Sled Track Upgrade 
Program.
  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 4423.

  The amendment is as follows:
       In section 201(4), strike out ``$9,662,542,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$9,679,542,000''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
authorize $17.5 million for the construction of Holloman high speed 
test track upgrade. The Holloman high-speed test track at HAFB is the 
premier high-speed ground-test facility in the world. Rocket motors 
propel sleds down a 10-mile track at velocities of up to March 6. High-
speed ground testing is used for a wide variety of development and 
qualifying testing. It is both highly cost effective in supporting 
flight testing and is capable of accomplishing tests, such as lethality 
impact test, that cannot be performed by other means.
  The HAFB test track has been designated as the ground test facility 
for theater missile defense [TMD] testing. Realistic testing for this 
mission requires velocities in the Mach 9 range.
  Development of top priority TMD interceptors without validation of 
their lethality results in a major technical risk that the United 
States would field defensive systems which are ineffective against 
chemical, biological, and radiological weapons. To reach the required 
impact velocities, new methodologies have had to be conceived which 
would remove the barrier to higher velocities, and provide more flight-
like environment.
  Limited maximum speed, excessive vibrations, and unreliability at 
very high speeds are the current limitations of the HAFB high-speed 
test track. Currently, a slipper fits over the rail and effectively 
holds the sled onto the rail as it is pushed by the rocket motors. The 
slipper/rail interaction is a major source of the limitations.
  A feasibility study which was concluded by the Air Force and 
completed in 1993, concluded that magnetically levitated hypersonic 
vehicles were feasible and relatively economical. Speeds of Mach 9 are 
achievable using current rocket motors, and because the levitated sled 
does not touch the guideway, the induced vibration and generated heat 
is eliminated, providing a near flight environment.
  Although this project is primarily committed to lethality testing, 
the system, once installed, lends itself to a multitude of other 
technology developments. The upgraded system will have an unsurpassed 
capability to support a wide variety of other military and civilian 
programs, such as: Electromagnetic launch of highly reusable space 
vehicles; testing of advanced propulsion systems; rocket motors; and 
development testing of transatmos- 
pheric propulsion motors.
  Currently, SCRAMJETS cannot be suitably tested because of windtunnel 
limitations, which preclude the study of the combustion process. The 
upgrade track should allow engineers and scientists to establish an 
environment to study advanced propulsion systems which are being 
considered for high altitude and space vehicles.
  The Federal Railroad Administration has signed a MOU regarding study 
of the use of the upgrade track hardware and facilities. Such use might 
include the following types of tests for commercial magnetically 
levitated items: Magnetic levitation and propulsion; magnetic design, 
including cryogenics and helium management; vehicle control and 
suspension systems; and passenger ride quality.
  Mr. President, the upgrade of the Holloman high speed test track will 
prove to be vital asset within the DOD test community. I understand 
that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have agreed to accept the 
amendment. I appreciate their support, I ask for adoption of the 
amendment, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4423) 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. 4424

    (Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance at Pine Bluff Arsenal, 
                               Arkansas)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bumpers and Senator 
Pryor, I offer an amendment authorizing the Secretary of the Army to 
convey 1,500 acres at Pine Bluff Arsenal to the economic development 
alliance of Jefferson County, AR. I believe this has been cleared on 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] for Mr. Bumpers, for 
     himself, and Mr. Pryor proposes an amendment numbered 4424.
  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 2828. LAND CONVEYANCE, PINE BLUFF ARSENAL, ARKANSAS.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may 
     convey, without consideration, to the Economic Development 
     Alliance of Jefferson County, Arkansas (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Alliance''), all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real 
     property, together with any improvements thereon, consisting 
     of approximately 1,500 acres and comprising a portion of the 
     Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas.
       (b) Requirements Relating to Conveyance.--The Secretary may 
     not carry out the conveyance of property authorized under 
     subsection (a) until--
       (1) the completion by the Secretary of any environmental 
     restoration and remediation that is required with the respect 
     to the property under applicable law;
       (2) the Secretary secures all permits required under 
     applicable law regarding the conduct of the proposed chemical 
     demilitarization mission at the arsenal; and
       (3) the Secretary of Defense submits to the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National 
     Security of the House of Representatives a certification that 
     the conveyance will not adversely affect the ability of the 
     Department of Defense to conduct that chemical 
     demilitarization mission.
       (c) Conditions of Conveyance.--The conveyance authorized 
     under subsection (a) shall be subject to the following 
     conditions:
       (1) That the Alliance agree not to carry out any activities 
     on the property to be conveyed that interfere with the 
     construction, operation,and decommissioning of the chemical 
     demilitarization facility to be constructed at Pine Bluff 
     Arsenal. If the Alliance fails to comply with its agreement 
     in

[[Page S7270]]

     (1) the property conveyed under this section all rights, 
     title and interest in and to the property shall revert to the 
     United States and the United States shall have immediate 
     right of entry thereon.
       (2) That the property be used during the 25-year period 
     beginning on the date of the conveyance only as the site of 
     the facility known as the ``Bioplex'', and for activities 
     related thereto.
       (d) Cost of Conveyance.--The Alliance shall be responsible 
     for any costs of the Army associated with the conveyance of 
     property under this section, including administrative costs, 
     the costs of an environmental baseline survey with respect to 
     the property, and the cost of any protection services 
     required by the Secretary in order to secure operations of 
     the chemical demilitarization facility from activities on the 
     property after the conveyance.
       (e) Reversionary Interests--If the Secretary determines at 
     any time during the 25-year period referred to in subsection 
     (c)(2) that the property conveyed under this section is not 
     being used in accordance with that subsection, all right, 
     title, and interest in and to the property shall revert to 
     the United States and the United States shall have immediate 
     right of entry thereon.
       (f) Sale of Property by Alliance.--If at any time during 
     the 25-year period referred to in subsection (c)(2) the 
     Alliance sells all or a portion of the property conveyed 
     under this section, the Alliance shall pay the United States 
     an amount equal to the lesser of--
       (1) the amount of the sale of the property sold; or
       (2) the fair market value of the property sold at the time 
     of the sale, excluding the value of any improvements to the 
     property sold that have been made by the Alliance.
       (g) Description or Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the property conveyed under this section shall 
     be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The 
     cost of the survey shall borne by the Alliance.
       (h) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with conveyance under this section as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, 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. 4424) 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. 4425

  (Purpose: To provide funds for research and development regarding a 
   surgical strike vehicle for defeating hardened and deeply buried 
                                targets)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Kyl 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. Kyl, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4425.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 223. SURGICAL STRIKE VEHICLE FOR USE AGAINST HARDENED 
                   AND DEEPLY BURIED TARGETS.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     201(4) for counterproliferation support program, $3,000,000 
     shall be made available to the Air Combat Command for 
     research and development into the near-term development of a 
     capability to defeat hardened and deeply mined targets; 
     including tunnels and deeply buried facilities for the 
     production and storage of chemical, biological, and nuclear 
     weapons and their delivery systems.
       (1) nothing in this section shall be construed as 
     precluding the application of the requirements of the 
     Competition in Contracting Act.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to offer an amendment to 
make $3 million available from the $168.7 million in the 
Counterproliferation Support Program for the Surgical Strike Vehicle 
[SSV], which, when deployed, will hold at risk hardened or deeply 
buried targets of our enemies. As recent press reports indicate, the 
proliferation of hardened and deeply buried targets for storage and 
production of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and their 
delivery systems is a serious threat to U.S. national security and that 
of our allies. The lack of a weapon that can hold these targets at risk 
has not gone unnoticed by rogue nations interested in proceeding with 
their weapons of mass destruction programs in relative immunity from 
likely--that is, nonnuclear--U.S. military responses.
  Few nonnuclear weapon concepts offer near-term capabilities against 
these underground facilities, however one Air Force concept, the 
Surgical Strike Vehicle, offers an interim solution with unprecedented 
deep penetration capability at significant standoff range.
  SSV integrates existing technologies and subsystems to produce a 
near-term solution against hardened and deeply buried targets. SSV is a 
B-52H launched, rocket propelled missile systems utilizing global 
positioning system-based guidance for prompt, precise, and 
hypervelocity impact of hardened and buried targets.
  SSV builds on the very successful USAF/Phillips Laboratory Missile 
Technology Demonstration-1 mission, which demonstrated the tightly 
coupled GPS navigation accuracy and successful penetration of weather 
granite at the White Sands missile range, New Mexico. In this August 
1995 test, a simulated subscale Earth penetrating warhead was precisely 
delivered on target at extremely high velocity, resulting in a 
successful penetration of 31 feet of granite. Much higher penetration 
depths are possible with full-scale penetrators and higher impact 
velocities, which the current system is capable of delivering.
  SSV is particularly suited to the high-value hardened and deeply 
buried target problem because it offers the following attributes: 
global coverage from CONUS, promptness--10 minutes from missile launch 
to impact--significant standoff range--launch over international waters 
against likely targets--Precision Lethality, >1,800 pounds of 
penetrating warheads at optimal peneteration velocity delivers a 
conventional high explosive, incendiary, or other warhead into any 
known cut-and-cover target and many tunnel targets; low probability of 
detection prior to impact for likely adversaries; immunity to air 
defenses or active countermeasures, jamming; and relative 
affordability.
  I am pleased to support the SSV program and hope the Senate will 
agree that this program is meritorious.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge approval of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4425) 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. 4426

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Navy to establish a National 
  Coastal Data Center on each coast of the continental United States)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Pell 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. Pell, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 4426.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 54, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
       ``(c) National Coastal Data Center.--(1) The Secretary of 
     the Navy shall establish a National Coastal Data Center at 
     each of two educational institutions that are either well-
     established oceanographic institutes or graduate schools of 
     oceanography. The Secretary shall select for the center one 
     institution located at or near the east coast of the 
     continental United States and one institution located at or 
     near the west coast of the continental United States.
       ``(2) The purpose of the center is to collect, maintain, 
     and make available for research and educational purposes 
     information on coastal oceanographic phenomena.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall complete the establishment of the 
     National Coastal Data Center not later than one year after 
     the date of the enactment of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, my understanding is that this has been 
cleared.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared. I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4426) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S7271]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4427

  (Purpose: To authorize $20,000,000 to be appropriated for the DARPA 
                        Optoelectronic Centers)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator 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. Nunn], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4427.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In section 201(4), strike out ``9,662,542,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$9,682,542,000''.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes $20 million 
for the DARPA sponsored Optoelectronics Centers. Optoelectronics is 
widely recognized as a critical enabling technology for many 
information-age defense, aerospace, and commercial applications. It is 
the cornerstone for battlefield sensing [ultraviolet to infrared and 
rf], for image and signal processing, for high-speed communications, 
for input-output devices such as displays and cameras, and for optical 
storage. The development of manufacturable, reliable, cost-effective 
optoelectronic technology for these applications is essential to 
national defense as well as to our national competitiveness. This will 
require the challenging fusion of technological advances in electronic 
and photonic technologies, and the coordinated effort of our national 
resources from academia, industry, and the Government.
  Over the initial 5 years of their existence, under the effective 
management of DARPA, the University Optoelectronics Centers have come a 
long way toward filling their role as a major resource for future U.S. 
defense needs. As the U.S. industry is steadily decreasing its 
investment in research, these Centers have become an integral part of 
the U.S. research and development effort, and are a major source of R&D 
personnel for the U.S. Government and the optoelectronics industry.
  The Centers' value as a resource is derived in large part from the 
variety of subdisciplines that they accommodate, enabling a synergy 
that would not be available to an individual researcher or a smaller 
research group. Through exposure to the defense community and industry, 
the Centers are also in a position to provide future engineers that can 
enter the work force seamlessly. The Centers are therefore a primary 
source of engineering manpower, an important, complimentary avenue for 
technology exchange.
  There are many examples of clear links to product development and on-
going interactions, as a measure of the contributions of the DARPA-
funded Centers.
  At the Center for Optoelectronics Science and Technology [COST] the 
emphasis is toward optical communications networks on a scale ranging 
from local area networks to the global grid. The COST Research Program 
includes three thrusts-optoelectronic systems [e.g., parallel optical 
links], laser and modulator technology [e.g., In AIP-InGap quantum well 
devices], and optical receiver technology [including MESFET and HBT 
receivers].
  At the National Center for integrated Photonic Technology [NCIPT] the 
focus is on the Optically-Controlled Phased Array Antennas [OCPAA] 
project in which significant impact could be made on the general 
application of photonics to microwave systems. The Center added a 
second focus area in optoelectronic integration with significant effort 
in the Optochip project, explained below. The Center also has devoted 
resources toward interconnects, including work on low-skew ribbon 
cable.
  At the Optoelectronic Materials Center [OMC], the major focus has 
been on diode-based visible sources, optoelectronic tools for 
intelligent manufacturing, and optoelectronic information networks. The 
work on visible diode sources is aimed at the realization of compact 
visible light sources based on GaN light emitting diodes and diode 
lasers, second harmonic generation of diode lasers, and up-conversion 
fiber lasers.
  The work in optolectronic tools aims primarily at the development of 
optoelectronic sensors for the silocon manufacturing industry, 
including applications in interferometric lithography, spectroscopic 
analysis of trace impurities, and the control of temperature during 
thermal processing steps. The Center's work in information network 
concentrates on the establishment of a test bed to evaluate wide 
bandwidth optical interconnects--based both on fiber and free-space 
technology.
  At the Optoelectronic Technology Center [OTC] the main focus is on 
computer interconnects [including guided wave and free space 
technologies], and high-performance networks [including time domain, 
subcarrier, and wavelength-division multiplexing].
  Mr. President, these Centers have been a valuable tool to the 
Department of Defense and my amendment will allow them to continue this 
vital work. I understand my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have 
agreed to accept my amendment. I appreciate their support, ask for 
adoption of the amendment, and I yield the floor .
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe this has been cleared by the 
other side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, it has been cleared. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4427) 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. 4428

   (Purpose: To prohibit the distribution of information relating to 
              explosive materials for a criminal purpose)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Feinstein 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 Mrs. Feinstein, 
     for herself, and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4428.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . PROHIBITION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION 
                   RELATING TO EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS FOR A CRIMINAL 
                   PURPOSE.

       (a) Unlawful Conduct.--Section 842 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(l) It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or 
     demonstrate the making of explosive materials, or to 
     distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole 
     or in part, the manufacture of explosive materials, if the 
     person intends or knows, that such explosive materials or 
     information will be used for, or in furtherance of, an 
     activity that constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a 
     criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce.''.
       (b) Penalty.--Section 844(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a) Any person'' and inserting ``(a)(1) 
     Any person''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Any person who violates subsection (l) of section 842 
     of this chapter shall be fined under this title, imprisoned 
     not more than 20 years, or both.''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to propose an amendment, which 
is co-sponsored by by Senator Biden, to prohibit teaching bomb-making 
for criminal purposes.
  First, I want to express my sincere appreciation to the managers of 
this bill, Senators Thurmond and Nunn, and to the distinguished 
chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senators Hatch 
and Biden, for their cooperation in accepting this important amendment.
  My amendment prohibits the teaching of how to make a bomb if a person 
intends or knows that the bomb will be used for a criminal purpose. 
Additionally, the amendment prohibits the distribution of information 
on how to make a bomb if a person intends or knows that the information 
will be used for a criminal purpose.
  The penalty for violation of this law would be a maximum of 20 years 
in prison, a fine of $250,000, or both.
  As my colleagues will recall, this amendment was accepted in the 
Senate as part of the anti-terrorism bill last summer. Regrettably, the 
House dropped it from their bill, and it was not restored in 
conference.
  I vowed then, on the floor of the Senate, to continue this fight, and 
attach this amendment to the next appropriate legislative vehicle. 
Today, that time has come.

[[Page S7272]]

  Unfortunately, while Congress was failing to act, the need for this 
law has, tragically, continued to grow dramatically.
  Just yesterday, while I was working to add this amendment to this 
bill, the Los Angeles Times ran a story, ``Internet Cited for Surge in 
Bomb Reports,'' which demonstrated this need. I ask unanimous consent 
that this article be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Times detailed the recent alarming rise in 
bombmaking incidents in my State of California: reports of possible 
explosives to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department have more than 
doubled in the last 2 months; responses by the Los Angeles Police 
Department to reports of suspected bombs shot up more than 35 percent 
from 1994 to 1995; the LAPD found 41 explosives in 1995, more than 
double the number 3 years earlier; and the Sheriff's Department 
discovered 69 bombs last year.
  What is especially troubling is that it appears that an increasing 
number of these incidents involve children, who are getting 
instructions for making these explosives from the Internet:
  Four teenagers were arrested last week for a rash of pipe bombings in 
Rancho Palos Verdes in May and June which destroyed four mailboxes, a 
guard shack, and a car.
  In Orange County, police say teenagers may have used the Internet to 
help construct acid-filled bottle bombs in Mission Viejo and Huntington 
Beach, one of which burned a 5-year-old boy when he found it on a 
school playground.
  Two-months ago, the Orange County Register reported that a North 
Carolina teenager who posted ``The Anarchist Cookbook'' on his World 
Wide Web page was told by a Dutch girl that she had used the recipes to 
blow up a neighbor's car.
  All Senators and Representatives should be concerned about this, for 
these incidents are occurring across the country. Wherever there is a 
computer and a phone line, this danger is present.
  In February, in upstate New York, three 13-year-old boys were charged 
with plotting to set off a homemade bomb in their junior high school, 
using bomb-making plans which they had gotten off of the Internet.
  Yesterday's Los Angeles Times article reported that computer-
generated guides proved a common link in bombs built recently by 
teenagers from the streets of Philadelphia and Houston to rural Kansas 
and upstate New York.
  These incidents aren't just limited to dangerous teenage pranks 
either. One of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers was arrested with 
manuals in hand.
  My amendment gives law enforcement another tool in the war against 
terrorism--to combat the flow of information that is used to teach 
terrorist and other criminals how to build bombs.
  This information is not something that one would use for a legitimate 
purpose or information that can be found in a chemistry textbook on the 
back shelf of a university library.
  What my amendment targets is detailed information that is made 
available to any would-be criminal or terrorist, with the intended 
purpose of teaching someone how to blow things up in the commission of 
a serious and violent crime--to kill, injure, or destroy property.
  In researching this issue, I came to find that specific and detailed 
information on how to make a bomb is distributed far too widely. It's 
available on the Internet, in books, in magazines, and by mail order. 
According to terrorism expert Neil Livingston, there are more than 
1,600 so-called mayhem manuals--books with titles like ``The Anarchist 
Cookbook,'' ``The New Improved Poor Man's James Bond,'' ``How To 
Kill'', and ``Exotic and Covert Weapons''.
  Let me provide some examples of the type of information I am talking 
about:
  The ``Terrorist's Handbook'' is available by mail order and on the 
Internet. Just recently, my staff downloaded a copy of it from the 
Internet; Mr. President, you could do the same thing today.
  The ``Terrorist's Handbook'' begins by saying:

       ``Whether you are planning to blow up the World Trade 
     Center, or merely explode a few small devices on the White 
     House lawn, the ``Terrorist's Handbook'' is an invaluable 
     guide to having a good time. Where else can you get such 
     wonderful ideas about how to use up all that extra ammonium 
     triiodide left over from last year's revolution.

  The Handbook goes on to give step-by-step instructions on what to do:

       Acquiring chemicals: ``The best place to steal chemicals is 
     a college. Many state schools have all of their chemicals out 
     on the shelves in the labs, and more in their chemical 
     stockrooms. Evening is the best time to enter a lab building, 
     as there are the least number of people in the building. . .. 
     Of course, if none of these methods are successful, there is 
     always section 2.11 [Techniques for Picking Locks].''

  It then tells the reader how to pick a lock.
  The Handbook lists various explosive recipes using black powders, 
nitroglycerine, dynamite, TNT, and ammonium nitrate. And, it provides 
explicit instructions for making pipe bombs, book bombs, light bulb 
bombs, glass container bombs, and phone bombs, just to name a few.

       Phone bomb: ``The phone bomb is an explosive device that 
     has been used in the past to kill or injure a specific 
     individual. The basic idea is simple: when the person answers 
     the phone, the bomb explodes. . .. It is highly probable that 
     the phone will be by his/her ear when the devise explodes.''
       Light Bulb bombs: ``An automatic reaction to walking into a 
     dark room is to turn on the light. This can be fatal, if a 
     lightbulb bomb has been placed in the overhead light socket. 
     A lightbulb bomb is surprisingly easy to make. It also comes 
     with its own initiator and electric ignition system.''

  Yet another handbook contains detailed schemes and diagrams for a 
zippered suitcase booby trap, and a shower head booby trap, triggered 
by the pressure of turning on the water.
  One of the more appalling descriptions of bomb making involves baby 
food bombs. The following information was taken from the Bullet'N Board 
computer bulletin board off the Internet:

       Babyfood Bombs: ``These simple, powerful bombs are not very 
     well know even though all the material can be easily obtained 
     by anyone (including minors). These things are so f---ing 
     powerful that they can destroy a car. . .. Here's how they 
     work.
       ``Go to the Sports Authority or Hermans sport shop and buy 
     shotgun shells. At the Sports Authority that I go to you can 
     actually buy shotgun shells without a parent or adult. They 
     don't keep it behind the little glass counter or anything 
     like that. It is $2.96 for 25 shells.''

  The computer bulletin board posting then provides instructions on how 
to assemble and detonate the bomb. It concludes with, ``If the 
explosion doesn't get'em then the glass will. If the glass doesn't 
get'em then the nails will.'' Here are some more examples of individual 
postings from the Internet:

       ``Are you interested in receiving information detailing the 
     components and materials needed to construct a bomb identical 
     to the one used in Oklahoma? The information specifically 
     details the construction, deployment and detonation of high 
     powered explosives. It also includes complete details of the 
     bomb used in Oklahoma City, and how it was used and could 
     have been better.''--posted April 23, 1995.
       ``I want to make bombs and kill evil zionist people in the 
     government. Teach me. . .. Give me text files!. . .. Feed my 
     wisdom, Oh great one.''--posted April 25, 1995.

  The foreword to the book ``Death by Deception: Advanced Improvised 
Booby Traps'' states:

       Terrorist IEDs [improvised explosive devices] come in many 
     shapes and forms, but these bombs, mines, and booby traps all 
     have one thing in common: they will cripple or kill you if 
     you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
       In this sequel to his best-selling book ``Deathtrap'', Jo 
     Jo Gonzales reveals more improvised booby-trap designs. 
     Discover how these death-dealing devices can be constructed 
     from such outwardly innocuous objects as computer modems, 
     hand-held radios, toilet-paper dispensers, shower heads, 
     talking teddy bears, and traffic cones. Detailed 
     instructions, schematic diagrams, and typical deployment 
     techniques for dozens of such contraptions are provided.

  Other titles of books that teach people how to make bombs include: 
``Guerrilla's Arsenal: Advanced Techniques for Making Explosives and 
Time-Delay Bombs''; and ``The Advanced Anarchist Arsenal: Recipes for 
Improvised Incendiaries and Explosives.''

  Enough is enough. Common sense should tell us that the First 
Amendment does not give someone the right to teach someone how to kill 
other people.

[[Page S7273]]

  The right to free speech in the First Amendment is not absolute. 
There are several well known exceptions to the First Amendment which 
limit free speech. These include: obscenity; child pornography; clear 
and present dangers; commercial speech; defamation; speech harmful to 
children; time, place and manner restrictions; incidental restrictions; 
and radio and television broadcasting.
  I do not for one minute believe that the Framers of the Constitution 
meant for the First Amendment to be used to directly aid the teaching 
of how to injure and kill.
  In today's day and age when violent crimes, bombings, and terrorist 
attacks are becoming too frequent, and when technology allows for the 
distribution of bomb making material over computers to millions of 
people across the country in a matter of seconds, some restrictions on 
speech are appropriate. Specifically, I believe that restricting the 
availability of bomb making information, if there is intent or 
knowledge that the information will be used for a criminal purpose, is 
both appropriate and required in today's day and age.
  My amendment is an important, balanced measure to confront the 
problems presented by today's rapid growth in technology, and I am 
extremely gratified by its adoption today.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

              [From the Los Angeles Times, June 27, 1996]

                Internet Cited for Surge in Bomb Reports


    computers: police and sheriff's officials say web sites provide 
            youngsters with information on making explosives

                   (By Eric Lichtblau and Jim Newton)

       Los Angeles explosives experts have seen an alarming rise 
     in bomb calls over the last several months, and they think 
     they know the main culprits: youngsters on the Internet who 
     are learning to make bombs by scanning computer sites with 
     ominous names like ``the Anarchists Cookbook'' and ``Bombs 
     and Stuff!''
       Reports of possible explosives to the Los Angeles Sheriff's 
     Department have more than doubled in the last two months. 
     More troubling, the percentage of suspicious devices that 
     turn out to be real explosives--especially homemade pipe 
     bombs--has grown even more drastically.
       The Los Angeles Police Department has noted a similar rise 
     in bomb reports, reflecting a nationwide trend that experts 
     blame on newfound computer access to explosives recipes.
       ``A lot of the [cases], we're finding out, are kids getting 
     the information off the Internet,'' said Lt. Tom Spencer, who 
     heads the sheriff's arson/explosives detail. ``We're very 
     worried, to be honest . . . It's frightening.''
       Sheriff's officials believe that information from the 
     Internet was used in a rash of pipe bombings in Rancho Palos 
     Verdes in May and June that destroyed four mailboxes, a guard 
     shack and a car. Four teenagers were arrested last week in 
     the explosions.
       In Orange County, meanwhile, police said the Internet may 
     have aided vandals in building acid-filled bottle bombs in 
     Mission Viejo and Huntington Beach. A 5-year-old boy was 
     burned by one of the bombs on a school playground in an April 
     attack that led to the arrests of four teenagers.
       And nationwide, computer-generated guides proved a common 
     link in bombs built recently by teenagers around the country, 
     from the streets of Philadelphia and Houston to rural 
     enclaves of Kansas and upstate New York.
       Some bookstores and libraries have long provided printed 
     information on homemade bombs--one such manual was found this 
     week in Torrance after a 23-year-old man allegedly blew out 
     three windows at his parents' home with a 10-inch-long pipe 
     bomb. But the Computer Age has cast the explosives' net far 
     wider, experts say.
       LAPD spokesman Cmdr. Tim McBride said: ``There is a lot of 
     verbiage on the Internet, where people are becoming * * * 
     more aware of what it takes to put a bomb together.''
       Indeed, a quick scan of computer sites reveals wide access 
     to site offering enlightenment on a wide range of bombs, some 
     cast in a serious, academic tone, others in an aggressive or 
     even hostile bent. ``Don't be a wimp. Do it NOW!!!'' urges a 
     file on ``making and owning an H-bomb.''
       One popular site, the Anarchists Cookbook, lists no fewer 
     than 19 chapters related to explosives, from ``Making Plastic 
     Explosives From Bleach'' to a ``Home-Brew Blast Cannon'' and 
     ``A Different Kind of Molitov [sic] Cocktail.''
       USC terrorism expert Richard Hrair Dekmejian believes that 
     users of such technology are often troubled youths who, 
     without intervention, could become involved in more serious 
     violence along the lines of the Oklahoma City, World Trade 
     Center or Unabomber attacks.
       The Internet's bomb-making intrigue offers an outlet for 
     troubled youths who are ``bored and alienated,'' he said in 
     an interview. ``This is very, very serious. This is a new 
     epidemic, and I see the problem getting worse,'' Dekmejian 
     said.
       The numbers in Los Angeles seem to prove him right.
       Both the LAPD and the Sheriff's Department--the main 
     agencies that handle bombings in the area--have seen marked 
     increases in the last several years in reports of 
     suspicious devices. Last year, responses at each 
     department shop up more than 35% over 1994, reaching 972 
     calls to the LAPD and 595 to the Sheriff's Department. 
     Each report of a suspected bomb automatically triggers a 
     response by a bomb squad.
       The rise has been even more drastic at the Sheriff's 
     Department in the last two months. The bomb detail, which had 
     been averaging about 30 calls a month, handled 68 assignments 
     in April and 62 in May.
       LAPD officials attribute the rise in part to the public's 
     increased awareness and sensitivity to the threat posed by 
     bombs, especially after terrorist bombings in Beirut, New 
     York City and Oklahoma City, among other attacks.
       For that reason, an abandoned briefcase may be more likely 
     to generate a call to police today than it was a few years 
     ago. But the trend goes beyond public alertness, officials 
     say, and the number of actual explosives discovered has gone 
     up significantly as well.
       The LAPD found 41 explosives in 1995, more than double the 
     number three years earlier. And the sheriff's discovery of 
     explosives rose about 10% over that same period, to 69 bombs. 
     The rise was particularly sharp in 1995 at the Sheriff's 
     Department, with the number of bombs 50% higher than in the 
     previous year.
       The Sheriff's Department and its 26 bomb technicians 
     recently began using a new 4\1/2\-inch-high robot to ferret 
     out possible explosives. Much smaller than its predecessors, 
     it can be used to roam under trucks or through theater aisles 
     to inspect suspicious items.
       But technology can be a double-edged sword, and Spencer 
     says his people remain hamstrung as long as the Internet 
     provides free recipes for disaster.
       ``We can't do anything because there's a freedom of speech 
     mandate that says people can put on the Internet what they 
     want, and people will access if if they want to access it,'' 
     he said. ``The way to stop it is for parents to monitor what 
     their kids are doing.''

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I stand in strong support of the Feinstein-
Biden amendment, which would make it a Federal crime to teach someone 
how to make a bomb if you know or intend that it will be used to commit 
a crime.
  This seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. Many Americans--
no, I think most Americans--would be absolutely shocked if they knew 
what kind of bone-chilling information is making its way over the 
Internet.
  You can access detailed, explicit instructions on how to make and 
detonate pipe bombs, light bulb bombs, and even--if you can believe 
it--baby food bombs.
  Let me give you just a small sample. A guy named ``Warmaster'' sent 
this message out over the Internet about how to build a baby food bomb. 
Here's how his message goes:

       These simple, powerful bombs are not very well known even 
     though all the materials can be easily obtained by anyone 
     (including minors). These things are so [expletive deleted] 
     powerful that they can destroy a car. The explosion can 
     actually twist and mangle the frame. They are extremely 
     deadly and can very easily kill you and blow the side of the 
     house out if you mess up while building it. Here's how they 
     work.

  And then the message goes into explicit detail about how to fill a 
baby food jar with gunpowder and how to detonate it.

       The thing about this bomb,

  The message observes,

     Is that the glass jar gets totally shattered and pieces of 
     razor sharp glass gets blasted in all directions.

  Warmaster's recipe also elaborates on how you can make the bomb more 
effective still:

       Tape nails to the side of the thing,

  It says.

     Sharpened jacks (those little things with all the pointy 
     sides) also work well. The good thing about those is any side 
     it lands on is right side up. If the explosion doesn't get'em 
     then the glass will. If the glass don't get'em then the nails 
     will.

  Now, I'm not making this stuff up.
  And what this amendment says is that if Warmaster gives his recipe to 
some young kid--intending or knowing that the kid will go build one of 
these bombs and blow it up over at the local school playground--then 
Warmaster should be put behind bars.
  Right now, that's not a Federal crime. It should be--no ifs, ands, or 
buts.
  I take a back seat to no one when it comes to the first amendment, 
and the protection of our most cherished rights of free speech.
  But there is no right under the first amendment to help someone blow 
up a

[[Page S7274]]

building. There is no right under the first amendment to be an 
accessory to a crime. And there is nothing in the first amendment that 
says we must leave our good sense at the doorstep.
  This is not the first time that Senator Feinstein and I have tried to 
put this crime on the books. We tried to add it back to the terrorism 
bill in April. But our Republican colleagues derailed our effort. 
Evidently, there were those on the House side who didn't like this 
provision--who for some reason didn't think that intentionally teaching 
someone how to build a bomb should be a crime.
  I'm glad that our Republican colleagues here in the Senate have come 
to their senses. And I hope--and urge--that they will do all that they 
can to make sure their House counterparts do the right thing this time.
  This amendment is simple and straightforward. If you're one of these 
guys who has made a name for himself writing manifestos like ``The 
Terrorist Handbook'' or ``How To Kill With Joy''--and if someone comes 
to you and says: ``Tomorrow morning, a group of police officers is 
going to be meeting in the 5th Street precinct--and I want to blow it 
up.''
  And if you then say: ``Here you go--I've got just the recipe for 
you.''
  It seems to me that that should be a crime. And I'm glad the Senate 
has seen fit to join Senator Feinstein and me in our effort to make it 
a crime.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared with the 
Judiciary Committee. It is not in our jurisdiction, but it has been 
approved by both Senator Hatch and Senator Biden. So I urge support of 
the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared. I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4428) 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. 4429

   (Purpose: To clarify that the exemption from the Qualified Thrift 
    Lender applies to any savings institutions that serve primarily 
                          military personnel)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Nunn], for Mr. Shelby, for 
     himself, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Gramm, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4429.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new 
     section:

     SEC.   . EXEMPTION FOR SAVINGS INSTITUTIONS SERVING MILITARY 
                   PERSONNEL.

       Section 10(m)(3)(F) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1467a(m)(3)(F)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(F) Exemption for specialized savings associations 
     serving certain military personnel.--Subparagraph (A) does 
     not apply to a savings association subsidiary of a savings 
     and loan holding company if not less than 90 percent of the 
     customers of the savings and loan holding company and the 
     subsidiaries and affiliates of such company are active or 
     former officers in the United States military services or the 
     widows, widowers, divorced spouses, or current or former 
     dependents of such officers.''.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this is a carefully tailored amendment 
intended to broaden the opportunities for military personnel to obtain 
financial services. There exists in current law an exemption from the 
penalties associated with failing to meet mortgage asset requirements 
of the qualified thrift lender [QTL] test. It was created some years 
ago for specialized savings associations serving military personnel. At 
least 90 percent of the association's customers must be active or 
former officers--commissioned and noncommissioned--in the U.S. military 
services or widows, widowers, divorced spouses, or current or former 
dependents of such officers. The rationale for the exemption is that 
relatively few transient military personnel and their dependents have 
the need or desire for a residential mortgage. Accordingly, it would be 
very difficult for a savings association serving the military community 
to comply with the QTL test requirement.
  The present exemption language is too narrowly drawn to apply to 
similarly situated organizations serving the military community. The 
amendment retains the essential requirement that at least 90 percent of 
the savings association's customers be military related. By permitting 
new market entrants, it will have the effect of expanding competition 
in this underserved market.
  This amendment has been endorsed by the Military Coalition, an 
organization of all the major active duty and veterans groups. The 
Treasury Department and the Office of Thrift Supervision have indicated 
no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. This amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. NUNN. This amendment has been cleared, and I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4429) 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. 4430

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Mr. Johnston 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. Johnston, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4430.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 410, line 5, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,000,000''.
       On page 410, line 10, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,000,000''.
       On page 410, before line 14, add the following:
       ``(c) Study on Permanent Authorization for General Plant 
     Projects.--Not later than February 1, 1997, the Secretary of 
     Energy shall report to the appropriate congressional 
     committees on the need for, and desirability of, a permanent 
     authorization formula for defense and civilian general plant 
     projects in the Department of Energy that includes periodic 
     adjustments for inflation, including any legislative 
     recommendations to enact such formula into permanent law. The 
     report of the Secretary shall describe actions that would be 
     taken by the Department to provide for cost control of 
     general plant projects, taking into account the size and 
     nature of such projects.''
       On page 413, line 25, strike 11$2,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,000,000''.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, this amendment raises the statutory 
fiscal ceiling set in section 3122 on a type of activity in the 
Department of Energy known as general plant projects. The amendment 
also requests a report from the Secretary of Energy with 
recommendations on a permanent authorization formula for such 
activities.
  General plant projects are projects that seek to maintain or replace 
the fixed and capital assets of the Department at its facilities, 
whether these assets are entire buildings, major subsystems of 
buildings--for example, electrical systems, compressed air systems--or 
other fixed assets such as parking lots, electrical substations, sewer 
lines, or roads. General plant projects do not entail the acquisition 
of new programmatic capabilities. Rather, they support and maintain an 
infrastructure for carrying out existing DOE programs and authorities. 
This activity designation is unique to DOE in this bill--there is not a 
clear analog to general plant projects in the Department of Defense, 
although the Department of Defense also has a large facility 
infrastructure that it must maintain.
  Starting in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
1986, cost ceilings have been annually established for DOE general 
plant projects for missions and authorities under the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Armed Services. This routine provision of recent 
defense bills, however, has proven to have considerable effects on the 
civilian programs of the Department under the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By establishing a statutory 
ceiling for general plant projects in the National Defense 
Authorization Act, the Congress has effectively set the ceiling on all 
Department spending on general plant projects, whether defense

[[Page S7275]]

or civilian. This is because it is not possible, in practice, to manage 
a system of routine construction and maintenance based on different 
ceilings. For example, a major electrical upgrade that affected both 
civilian and defense-related buildings at a DOE site could hardly be 
subject to two different statutory limits. Nor, as another example, 
could an upgrade to a sanitary sewer system connecting several 
buildings--some of which housed civilian DOE programs, others of which 
housed DOE defense projects--be accomplished under two different 
statutory limits. In fact, there is some evidence that the greatest 
impact of the ceiling in the Defense bill is on the Department of 
Energy infrastructure supporting civilian missions, as general plant 
projects at defense-related DOE sites tend to be small than general 
plant projects at civilian sites.
  The present ceiling on general plant projects has also never been the 
subject of a substantive review. Many Department of Energy sites are 
over 50 years old and contain numerous buildings that are far below 
contemporary standards or that have completely outlived their useful 
occupancy. Major rehabilitation of these buildings or their major 
systems for ongoing programs is required. Yet, the $2,000,000 statutory 
limitation on such projects poses a major obstacle to the speedy 
accomplishment of such tasks.
  For example, in fiscal year 1996, the Office of Energy Research had 
to propose a line-item project--Project No. 95-E-303--to rehabilitate 
electrical systems in the laboratories for which it was responsible in 
the 300 Area of the Hanford Site. This work was required to correct 
numerous National Electrical Code violations identified in 1990 during 
a ``Tiger Team'' inspection. In DOE's words, ``much of the older 
equipment is deteriorating and its present condition poses a personnel 
and fire hazard.'' The construction cost for this electrical safety 
rehabilitation was estimated at $4.2 million, above the current general 
plant project limit. Because of this statutory limitation, this needed 
safety upgrade--identified nearly 6 years ago--has been delayed for at 
least an additional 18 months, and workers have been needlessly exposed 
to a known, personnel and fire hazard. Further, because this project 
was forced into a line-item project status, its costs were further 
increased by the need for the preparation of a conceptual design report 
and by enhanced requirements for project management that attend line-
item projects of any size in the Department. The ``design and 
management costs'' associated with this $4.2 million construction 
project were an additional $1.7 million. Clearly, this is an example of 
excessive costs driven by an artificially low limit on general plant 
projects.

  As another example, at Brookhaven National Laboratory, an existing 
storage and transfer facility for fuel oil had to be upgraded over a 
period of 4 fiscal years via a line-item appropriation because the cost 
of the project was $3.65 million. This facility was the only supply of 
fuel for the central steam facility that, in turn, provided heat and 
hot water to the entire laboratory. A timely upgrade was needed to 
bring the facility into compliance with State and local codes. Because 
this project was delayed in order to undertake it as a line-item 
appropriation, the regulatory timetable for achieving compliance was 
exceeded and State and local officials had to issue a temporary waiver 
to the old facility to continue operations. Had these officials been 
less forthcoming, the operations of the entire laboratory would have 
been compromised. There is heightened regulatory concern over potential 
groundwater contamination from Brookhaven laboratory facilities on Long 
Island, as Brookhaven is located over an EPA designated sole-source 
aquifer for the Island. Had general plant project funds been available 
for this project, it would have been completed more expeditiously, the 
need for a special waiver might have been avoided, and the Department 
and the Laboratory could have certainly avoided further inflaming local 
concern over groundwater pollution from this facility.
  There are many other examples that could be discussed of needed 
projects at DOE facilities that have been needlessly delayed because of 
the general plant project limitation contained in previous Defense 
Authorization Acts. Put simply, $2 million doesn't buy very much in the 
real world of facilities management. Replacing 3,480 feet of sanitary 
sewer lines ranging in diameter from 3 to 8 inches--Project 96-E-331--
or retrofitting heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems in a 
40-year-old 300-person office building--Project 95-A-500--or upgrading 
a chemical laboratory to meet current requirements of the Uniform Fire 
Code--Project 93-E-324--all exceed $2 million in costs.
  In preparation for offering this amendment, I asked the Department of 
Energy to estimate the number of projects and their related costs that 
would be added to the general plant project category if my amendment 
were adopted. I ask unanimous consent that the response from the 
Department of Energy be printed in the Record following the completion 
of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the DOE response, which I interpret to 
favor this amendment, is illuminating in several respects.
  First of all, it confirms that there are real cost savings to be 
realized by raising the general plant project limit. DOE estimates that 
$4.7 million would be saved by raising the ceiling under my amendment, 
considering only costs associated with elimination of Conceptual Design 
Reports and savings from avoiding the 18-to-24 month hiatus now 
experienced by projects in the range between $2 million and $5 million. 
There are also additional savings that will result from reduced 
overhead (personnel associated with these projects now must be moved to 
other projects and otherwise kept on the payroll during the hiatus or 
new personnel must be brought up to speed at the end of the hiatus). As 
the examples I have given above illustrate, there are also other 
savings that are possible, from avoided injuries or fines and penalties 
that might result from missed compliance dates. It is hard to put a 
figure on such costs, as they will vary from project to project, but 
they are very real.
  Second, the DOE response indicates that raising this limit will not 
open the flood gates to an unmanageable number of additional projects. 
Based on fiscal year 1996 data, increasing the limit under my amendment 
will increase the actual number of general plant projects by less than 
10 percent. The total funding for general plant projects, across the 
Department, might increase by $64,000,000, with most of this increase 
projected to occur on the civilian side of the Department. The impact 
of my amendment on general plant projects in the Office of Defense 
Programs, according to the Department, ``would be relatively small.'' 
Thus, I believe that my amendment is an appropriate step to take at 
this time.

  Third, the DOE response indicates that, because the funds for general 
plant projects in fiscal year 1997 have been spoken for, this amendment 
will begin to exert its effect starting in fiscal year 1998, thus 
allowing the Department one year to examine its internal procedures to 
ensure that they are adequate for the higher limit.
  While I am convinced that increasing the limit from $2 million to $5 
million in this bill is well justified, I also believe that we need a 
more permanent solution to the issue of establishing limits on general 
plant projects in the Department of Energy. That is why my amendment 
also calls for a report ``on the need for, and desirability of, a 
permanent authorization formula for defense and civilian general plant 
projects in the Department of Energy that periodic adjustments for 
inflation, including any legislative recommendation to enact such 
formula into permanent law.'' I believe that we should set in motion a 
process to arrive at a permanent legal and management framework that 
addresses both civilian and defense needs for general plant projects in 
the Department of Energy. I would like to thank the managers of this 
bill for their cooperation and support for my attempts to address this 
issue, and I urge the adoption of my amendment.

[[Page S7276]]

                               Exhibit 1


                                         Department of Energy,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 1996.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Energy and Natural 
         Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnston: Thank you for June 18, 1996, letter 
     concerning general plant projects in the Department of 
     Energy.
       As you are aware, the statutory ceiling on general plant 
     projects contained in S. 1745, the Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1997, applies only to atomic energy defense 
     activities funded under the 050 function. You are correct, 
     however, that the Department applies this same ceiling to all 
     Department spending on general plant projects for 
     administrative convenience and consistency.
       The analysis prepared by the Department in response to your 
     questions includes both civilian and defense spending for 
     general plant projects in the aggregate based upon fiscal 
     year 1996 spending. Our analysis suggests that potential 
     savings could accrue from raising the ceiling on general 
     plant projects. Some program offices would clearly be more 
     likely to accrue savings than other program offices, however. 
     For example, in the case of the Office of Defense Programs, 
     general plant projects tend to be small construction 
     requirements, such as facility refurbishment and minor road 
     repairs, and very few of these projects reach the $2 million 
     ceiling. Therefore, savings from increasing the ceiling for 
     the Office of Defense Programs would be relatively small. In 
     addition, as a result of language included in the House and 
     Senate reports accompanying the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriation for Fiscal Year 1996, the Department now merges 
     its general plant projects into operating expenses, which has 
     provided the Department additional flexibility in carrying 
     out general plant projects under the ceiling of $2 million. 
     The value to the Department of a higher general plant project 
     ceiling would be enhanced if that flexibility were extended 
     to the higher ceiling.
       The Department appreciates your efforts to reduce 
     unnecessary or burdensome requirements and to assist us in 
     finding areas for cost savings. I hope this information is 
     helpful to you. If you have further questions, please contact 
     Mary Louise Wagner, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Senate 
     Liaison, on 202-586-5468.
           Sincerely,

                                       Donald W. Pearman, Jr.,

                                        Associate Deputy Secretary
                                             for Field Management.
       Enclosure.

                               Enclosure

       Question. What is number of general plant projects 
     anticipated in FY 1997 that would be below the current 
     $2,000,000 limit?
       Answer. These projects tend to be relatively small, such as 
     facility refurbishment, minor road repairs, roof repair and 
     replacement, electrical system upgrades, and some small 
     facilities. The actual projects to be funded in FY 1997 will 
     not be selected until later when programmatic needs and 
     unexpected repairs are prioritized with existing lists of 
     general plant project requirements. Although a few push the 
     $2,000,000 limit, $500,000 is a good estimate of the average 
     size of these projects. Based on this average, we estimate 
     approximately 200 general plant projects in FY 1997.
       Question. What is the total dollar amount represented by 
     these projects?
       Answer. The total dollar amount represented by these 
     projects (i.e., the FY 1997 funding request for general plant 
     projects) is approximately $98,000,000.
       Question. What would be the number of general plant 
     projects (and the corresponding dollar amount) that would be 
     added if the limit in the Defense Authorization Act were to 
     be changed to $2,500,000; $4,000,000; and $5,000,000?
       Answer. Using FY 1996 data as a gauge, there would be no 
     additional general plant projects, if the limit were raised 
     to $2,500,000.
       Using FY 1996 data as a gauge, there would be 11 additional 
     general plant projects with an additional dollar amount of 
     $37,000,000, if the limit were raised to $4,000,000.
       Using FY 1996 data as a gauge, there would be 7 additional 
     general plant projects with an additional dollar amount of 
     $27,000,000, if the limit were raised to $5,000,000.
       Question. What savings would occur if the limit on general 
     plant projects were changed to $2,500,000; $4,000,000; and 
     $5,000,000?
       Answer. For that limited number of projects in FY 1996 
     which fell between $2,000,000 and $5,000,000 in estimated 
     total project cost, some savings would be generated by 
     shortening the project time line and being able to proceed 
     immediately from conceptual design, through final engineering 
     and into physical construction. The analysis was conducted on 
     FY 1996 data and would vary from year to year depending on 
     the specific activities.
       If the limit on general plant projects were changed to 
     (based on our current data):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Additional                          
             Limit                general plant      Estimated savings  
                                     projects                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2.5 Million..................  $0...............  $0                   
$4.0 Million..................  $37 Million......  $2.7 Million (see    
                                                    note).              
$5.0 Million..................  $27 Million......  $4.7 Million (see    
                                                    note).              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Calculation of Savings: $37 M x 2% for Conceptual Design Report   
  development + 5.3% (Escalation) = $2.7M. ($37M + $27M) x 2% for       
  Conceptual Design Report development + 5.3% (Escalation) = $4.7M.     

       Question. How would such cost savings be realized?
       Answer. General plant projects do not require Conceptual 
     Design Reports. Once requirements for general plant projects 
     are identified, design of the projects can begin immediately.
       Currently, there is an 18-24 month delay between the 
     completion of a Conceptual Design Report and start of design 
     of a line item project (any construction project above $2 
     million). The cost savings if the Conceptual Design Reports 
     are not required would be approximately 2 percent of the 
     total project cost (representing the average cost to perform 
     the Conceptual Design Report) plus avoidance of the 
     escalation resulting from the two year ``hiatus.'' Other 
     intangible cost savings would accrue from reduced overhead, 
     quicker response to changed mission requirements and earlier 
     availability of facilities to support the mission.
       In FY 1997, minimum savings would be realized because 
     Conceptual Design Reports should already have been started or 
     completed, therefore the delay (18-24 months) between 
     Conceptual Design Reports and start of design would have 
     already occurred. Any real savings would start to accrue in 
     FY 1998.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on this 
side. I urge the Senate adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4430) 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. 4431

  (Purpose: To require the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense 
    Organization to prevent adverse effects of establishment of the 
    National Missile Defense Joint Program Office on private sector 
                              employment)

  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. Heflin, for 
     himself and Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 4431.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 907. ACTIONS TO LIMIT ADVERSE EFFECTS OF ESTABLISHMENT 
                   OF NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE JOINT PROGRAM 
                   OFFICE ON PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYMENT.

       The Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization 
     shall take such actions as are necessary in connection with 
     the establishment of the National Missile Defense Joint 
     Program Office to ensure that the establishment and execution 
     of the new management structure will not include any planned 
     reductions in Federal Government employees, or Federal 
     Government contractors, supporting the national missile 
     defense development program at any particular location 
     outside the National Capitol Region (as defined in section 
     2674(f)(2) of Title 10, United States Code).

  Mr. HEFLIN. This amendment would help assure that the creation of a 
new management office within the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization 
does not result in a centralized bureaucracy at the expense of vital 
ballistic missile defense capabilities built up over the years across 
the United States.
  Concerns about Pentagon centralization have resulted in the Defense 
Appropriations Committees limiting funds made available for relocations 
of DOD organizations, units, activities, or functions into or within 
the National Capital Region. This has been the case in the past and it 
is again the case in the pending Defense appropriations bill. Another 
concern has been the use of support contractor services and consultants 
to escalate centralization in Washington. In 1992, Senator Pryor found 
an alarming trend of contractor growth in support of the BMDO 
predecessor organzation, the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization 
[SDIO]. His amendment, accepted without opposition, capped the amount 
of money

[[Page S7277]]

which could be expended for the procurement of support services for the 
central SDIO activity. Its intent is still relevant today.
  Those concerns about DOD centralization are founded on traditional 
beliefs that government works best when it is not all collocated in the 
Capital region. Centralization of government and contractor personnel 
results in higher costs. Relocation of functions loses unique 
capabilities now available through military services and thus creates 
greater inefficiencies and schedule losses due to the necessity to 
retrain and replace technical and managerial personnel.
  The purpose of this amendment is to clearly establish that the 
implementation of the NMD JPO decision must continue to be consistent 
with the assurances we are being given by the Pentagon. The Acting BMDO 
Director, Adm. Dick West, has just met with our staffs and discussed 
the organizational details of the new Joint Program Office, as it is 
now planned. He foresees a central organization of 64 or thereabouts, 
supported by those on-going activities in the field who have been 
developing such elements as the interceptor and ground-based radar. At 
present, these are basically all in the Army sphere of responsibility 
since the Air Force Space and Missile Tracking System Program is an Air 
Force program and will not be under the new office, and the Navy has no 
current role in NMD. Admiral West is convincing in his assurances that 
those activities which have been so beneficial to the progress in 
ballistic missile defense in the past will not be adversely impacted by 
this new central office. Concurrently, a BMDO ``Point Paper'' has 
included the following assurances:

       The decision to manage NMD using a Joint Program Office 
     (JPO) does not change the fundamental execution of the 
     program. The basic building blocks remain the same and 
     will be developed by the organization already assigned 
     those responsibilities. Contracts that have been awarded 
     will be executed as planned. The Service organizations 
     that have had responsibility for NMD will continue to play 
     the same role. As the program approaches a deployment 
     decision, the role of the services will increase 
     significantly.

  Even with this assurance, I believe this amendment is necessary to 
clearly reflect the intent of Congress for the benefit of Admiral 
West's successor and those further down the organizational ladder 
responsible for the implementation of the various components of the new 
activity.
  These are important times for the National Missile Defense Program, 
when with additional funding and emphasis, Congress has great 
expectations that these investments will yield the greatest possible 
dividends. Continuation of the valuable contributions of the NMD 
activities in their field locations will be critical to that success.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I believe this has been cleared, and I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment is cleared. I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4431) 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. 4432

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Mr. Lott 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. Lott, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4432.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . OCEANOGRAPHIC SHIP OPERATIONS AND DATA ANALYSIS.

       (a) Of the funds provided by Section 301(2), an additional 
     $6,200,000 may be authorized for the reduction, storage, 
     modeling and conversion of oceanographic data for use by the 
     Navy, consistent with Navy's requirements.
       (b) Such funds identified in (a) shall be in addition to 
     such amounts already provided for this purpose in the budget 
     request.

  Mr. McCAIN. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared, and I urge 
its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4432) was agreed to.

                          ____________________