[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.
____________________