[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7928-S7936]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1894) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and 
     for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Stevens amendment No. 4439, to realign funds from Army and 
     Defense Wide Operation and Maintenance accounts to the 
     Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund.

  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my understanding as to the vote on the 
cloture motion that was filed last week, it has been temporarily set 
aside and could be called back by the leadership after notice to the 
minority; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Hawaii and I are now at liberty to 
proceed with the bill; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

[[Page S7929]]

  Mr. STEVENS. When we were interrupted by the proceedings on the 
cloture motions last week, I had an amendment pending which had been 
set aside. Is that still the situation with regard to this bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 4439, as 
the Senator has stated. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4439

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the clerk to lay before the Senate 
the amendment that was set aside, No. 4439.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending question.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment that 
transfers funds from one account to another to assure that the 
contingency operations of the Department will be met.


                Amendment No. 4589 to Amendment No. 4439

 (Purpose: A second degree amendment to amendment number 4439 filed by 
                              Mr. Stevens)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now send to the desk an amendment which 
was proposed by Senator Inouye and introduced on Friday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Inouye, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4589 to amendment No. 4439.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter to be inserted by amendment number 
     4439, at an appropriate place in the bill insert:
       Sec. 8099. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, the number for Military Personnel, Navy shall be 
     $16,948,481,000, the number for Military Personnel, Air Force 
     shall be $17,026,210,000, the number for Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army shall be $17,696,659,000, the number for 
     Operation and Maintenance, Air Force shall be 
     $17,326,909,000, the number for Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide shall be $9,887,142,000, the number for Overseas 
     Contingency Operations Transfer Fund shall be $1,140,157,000, 
     the number for Defense Health Program shall be 
     $10,251,208,000, the number for Defense Health Program 
     Operation and maintenance shall be $9,931,738,000. (b) Of the 
     funds appropriated under the heading Aircraft procurement, 
     Air Force, $11,500,000 shall be made available only for 
     modifications to B-52 bomber aircraft. (c) Of the funds 
     appropriated in title VI of this Act, under the heading 
     Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense for 
     Research, development, test and evaluation, $3,000,000 shall 
     only be for the accelerated development of advanced sensors 
     for the Army's Mobile Munitions Assessment System. (d) Of the 
     funds appropriated in title IV of this Act, under the heading 
     Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 
     $56,200,000 shall be available for the Corps Surface-to-Air 
     Missile (CORPS SAM) program and $515,743,000 shall be 
     available for the Other Theater Missile Defense/Follow-On TMD 
     Activities program. (e) Funds appropriated in title II of 
     this Act for supervision and administration costs for 
     facilities maintenance and repair, minor construction, or 
     design projects may be obligated at the time the reimbursable 
     order is accepted by the performing activity: Provided, That 
     for the purpose of this section, supervision and 
     administration costs includes all in-house government costs. 
     (f) Of the funds appropriated in title IV of this Act, under 
     the heading Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 
     $2,000,000 is available for titanium processing technology. 
     (g) Advance billing for services provided or work performed 
     by the Navy's defense business operating fund activities is 
     prohibited: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under 
     the heading Operation and Maintenance, Navy, $2,976,000,000 
     shall be available only for depot maintenance activities and 
     programs, and $989,700,000 shall be available only for real 
     property maintenance activities. (h) The Secretary of Defense 
     may waive reimbursement of the cost of conferences, seminars, 
     courses of instruction, or similar educational activities of 
     the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies for military 
     officers and civilian officials of foreign nations if the 
     Secretary determines that attendance by such personnel, 
     without reimbursement, is in the national security interest 
     of the United States: Provided, That costs for which 
     reimbursement is waived pursuant to this subsection shall be 
     paid from appropriations available for the Asia-Pacific 
     Center. (i) Of the funds appropriated in title IV of this 
     Act, under the heading Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide, $3,000,000 shall be available for a 
     defense technology transfer pilot program. (j) Of the funds 
     appropriated in title IV of this Act, under the heading 
     Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, $4,000,000 
     is available for the establishment of the National Coastal 
     Data Centers required by section 7901(c) of title 10, United 
     States Code, as added by the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1997. (k)(1) Of the amounts appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this Act for the Department of 
     the Air Force, $2,000,000 shall be available to provide 
     comprehensive care and rehabilitation services to children 
     with disabilities who are dependents of members of the Armed 
     Forces at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.
       (2) Subject to subsection (3), the Secretary of the Air 
     Force shall grant the funds available under subsection (a) to 
     the Children's Association for Maximum Potential (CAMP) for 
     use by the association to defray the costs of designing and 
     constructing the facility referred to in subsection (1).
       (3)(a) The Secretary may not make a grant of funds under 
     subsection (2) until the Secretary and the association enter 
     into an agreement under which the Secretary leases to the 
     association the facility to be constructed using the funds.
       (b)(1) The term of the lease under paragraph (1) may not be 
     less than 25 years.
       (2) As consideration for the lease of the facility, the 
     association shall assume responsibility for the operation and 
     maintenance of the facility, including the costs of such 
     operation and maintenance.
       (c) The Secretary may require such additional terms and 
     conditions in connection with the lease as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

  Mr. STEVENS. I stand corrected. This is an amendment based upon a 
series of amendments that I will articulate after we adopt this 
amendment. This is a managers' amendment. It has been drafted and 
prepared by Senator Inouye. With his consent, I have called it up as an 
amendment in the second degree to the pending amendment.
  I want to give notice to all Senators that it is being brought up and 
it is a technical amendment. However, it does cover a series of 
amendments that were filed in cloture. This amendment, if adopted, 
covers amendments Nos. 4466, 4439, 4467, 4468, 4469, 4470, 4471, 4472, 
4473, 4474, 4475, 4476, 4477, 4478, 4481, 4482, 4483, 4484, 4485, 4486, 
4487, 4488, 4511, 4565, 4567, and 4576. I believe that is the list.
  Because of the cloture requirements, we filed separate amendments to 
achieve the same objective as the managers' amendment we had worked out 
before the cloture motion was filed. These were a series, not totally 
technical, of amendments that had been worked out on both sides and 
cleared on both sides for inclusion in this bill by unanimous consent. 
If we adopt this amendment, I will ask that the amendments I have just 
read be withdrawn.
  I turn to my friend from Hawaii to seek his concurrence in this 
procedure.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have no objection, and I wish to advise 
my colleagues that this procedure and these amendments have been 
cleared by both sides.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to wait a minute in total 
fairness. We are trying to contact one Senator. I want to make sure 
there is no disagreement. We have the list here, if anyone who is 
observing these proceedings is concerned. This will, in effect, adopt 
the amendments that we were prepared, before the cloture motion was 
filed, to recommend to the Senate as one managers' amendment. That is 
our proceeding now.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I restate my request. I have an amendment 
at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as a 
substitute for the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the plasma quench technology amendment will 
yield valuable results for our defense and aerospace industries in the 
near future. I understand it has been accepted by the committee, so I 
will keep my remarks brief. I sincerely appreciate the help and support 
of the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Stevens and the ranking 
member, Senator Inouye.
  Mr. President, my amendment would provide $2 million from funds 
available under title IV of the legislation before

[[Page S7930]]

us, to support development of an innovative metallurgic technology 
called plasma quench developed at the Idaho National Engineering 
Laboratory, to be used in producing ultra fine titanium powder and 
developing an injection molding of titanium metal.
  Titanium metal is of critical significance to a wide variety of 
strategically important manufactured products, and the need for 
titanium in the production of such products is set to increase 
dramatically. In the transportation and aerospace areas the feasibility 
of many advanced products is predicated on a high-quantity, low cost 
supply of titanium that simply does not currently exist. At the same 
time that U.S. aerospace companies and other manufacturers are becoming 
more dependent on titanium, the sources for processed titanium metal 
are increasingly moving offshore, becoming more expensive. High capital 
and operational costs, in addition to the waste disposal costs 
associated with the standard Kroll process for titanium production are 
largely to blame for this migration. This situation threatens to 
seriously diminish the leverage and control exercised by U.S. 
manufacturers over this important strategic material.
  The plasma quench process represents an alternative to the Kroll 
process that could have a radical impact on the world's titanium market 
by dramatically reducing the capital and process costs, and eliminating 
the waste stream associated with titanium production. While commercial-
scale production of other metals using this process has already been 
demonstrated, much developmental work is necessary to prove the 
viability of the process with regard to titanium.
  Mr. President, this is an important step in assuring the cost-
effective, viable, and readily accessible production in the United 
States. As I mentioned before, I thank the committee for accepting this 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Now, Mr. President, I will announce, once again, that 
this is the managers' amendment. It incorporates a series of amendments 
that we had agreed to accept on both sides prior to the cloture motion 
being filed. It has been checked with the persons that had some 
question about it. I now believe that it is still cleared on both 
sides. With that concurrence from the Senator from Hawaii, I ask if he 
concurs that it be adopted.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I concur.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, amendment No. 4589 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4589) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 4439, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, amendment No. 4439, 
as amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4439), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I read the series of amendments that have 
been proposed in the cloture mode, and I recall all of those 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, those amendments are 
recalled.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have a series of amendments that have 
been filed, and we have been notified of a series that Members will 
seek to debate. We have an understanding with the leadership that a 
cloture motion will continue to be set aside so long as we proceed 
expeditiously with this bill.
  Senator Inouye and I are prepared to debate and consider any 
amendments that Members have indicated they wish to bring before the 
Senate. We will announce to the Senate that if there are no Members 
that wish to bring the matters before the Senate, we will go to third 
reading.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I will. Does the Senator from Hawaii have any 
remaining amendments he wishes to consider?
  Mr. INOUYE. Not personally.
  Mr. President, I want to advise my colleagues that the managers of 
this measure are prepared to not only debate but to pass this measure 
today. If we cooperate, we should be able to do so by a reasonable time 
this evening.
  That would mean tomorrow and the weekend would be free for our 
colleagues to do what they normally wish to do at this time of the 
year. So, Mr. President, I hope that the staff on both sides will send 
the message out to those who are interested in presenting amendments to 
come forth to the floor and do so expeditiously.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I can have the indulgence of the 
Chair, I have three small amendments that I will present.


                           Amendment No. 4563

   (Purpose: To require a study regarding the F-22 advanced tactical 
                                fighter)

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

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4563.

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

       On page 30, line 2, before the period, insert: ``: 
     Provided, That not less than $1,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph shall be made available only 
     to assess the budgetary, cost, technical, operational, 
     training, and safety issues associated with a decision to 
     eliminate development of the F-22B two-seat training variant 
     of the F-22 advanced tactical fighter: Provided further, That 
     the assessment required by the preceding proviso shall be 
     submitted, in classified and unclassified versions, by the 
     Secretary of the Air Force to the Congressional defense 
     committees not later than February 15, 1997''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment allocates $1 million for 
the Air Force to assess comprehensively the implications of the 
service's recent decision to terminate development of a two-seat 
trainer variant of the F-22 advanced tactical fighter.
  I might state to the Senate that we have been informed that, if there 
was a proposal to eliminate the two-seat variant of the F-22 advanced 
tactical fighter, that would leave us without a training vehicle for 
this very sophisticated new aircraft.
  We are not mandating that the decision be changed. We are mandating 
that there be a study made of that decision with regard to safety and 
training problems, as well as budgetary and technical problems, and 
that the Appropriations Committees and the Armed Services Committees of 
the House and Senate receive this study by February 15, 1997.
  The Air Force normally acquires fighter aircraft in single-seat and 
two-seat variants so that the latter may be used for pilot flight 
training. Although the twin-seat trainers cost more than the single 
seat aircraft, they are considered necessary for the effective and safe 
training of pilots in the demanding air-to-air and air-to-ground 
tactical environments. Should a student pilot experience difficulties, 
the instructor pilot can assume control of the aircraft and safely 
demonstrate the required procedures and maneuvers.
  Recently, the Air Force decided to cease development of the two-seat 
F-22--known as the ``F-22B''--in order to constrain costs.
  Mr. President, there are serious safety, operational, and training 
issues associated with this decision. The F-22 is the most complex 
fighter aircraft ever developed. The pilots flying it must be the best 
trained to operate and fight the aircraft safely and effectively. The 
loss of a single pilot in a training accident would be a tragedy and 
would deprive the nation of a talented Air Force officer needed to 
accomplish important military missions.
  There also are major cost, budgetary, and technical issues associated 
with the decision. Every F-22 fighter will cost at least $111 million 
to procure. The entire program will cost at least $70,092,947,000. In 
addition to the high cost of training a pilot, the loss of just a few 
F-22's in training or operational accidents caused by inferior training 
would more than offset the savings generated by terminating the F-22B. 
In retrospect, this decision may well come to be seen as penny wise and 
fiscally and militarily pound foolish.

[[Page S7931]]

  The amendment I am offering is intended to provide the Congress with 
sufficient information to enable us to fully understand the many 
serious implications of the Air Force decision. Congress should have 
the opportunity to consider, and to act on, this decision in a timely 
manner.
  The amendment mandates that the required report be submitted in 
classified and unclassified versions.
  Does this have my friend's support?
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by both 
sides.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4563) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4489

  (Purpose: To reduce by $100 million the maximum amount allowed for 
                          Pentagon renovation)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4489 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4489.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 70, line 8, strike out ``$1,218,000,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,118,000,000''.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment will bring the defense 
appropriations bill into conformance with the authorization bill on the 
total cost of the renovation of the Pentagon reservation. My amendment 
reduces the cost cap in the bill by $100 million to a total of $1.118 
billion. This is identical in purpose to the amendment passed by the 
Senate on June 25 during debate on the defense authorization bill.
  The amendment is very simple and straightforward. It reduces the 
funds for the Pentagon renovation project by $100 million. As we have 
realigned our defense programs to meet changing needs, funds for many 
projects have been reduced or eliminated. Despite big reductions in 
defense spending and defense personnel, the Pentagon renovation project 
has enjoyed a steady flow of cash.
  The time has come to impose greater financial discipline on the 
Pentagon, just as the Pentagon has asked other military organizations 
to be more frugal. This would be the first reduction in funds for this 
expensive project since its inception half a decade ago, and it amounts 
to less than 10 percent of the total.
  Many things have changed since this 15-year project began, and I 
believe Pentagon renovation plans can be better aligned with today's 
realities. There are many factors which ease the impact of a reduced 
renovation budget. For example, the Department of Defense is 
downsizing. As the civilian and military workforce is steadily reduced, 
demands on workspace have eased. Construction costs in the Washington 
DC area have fallen and contract costs for the renovation have turned 
out to be considerably lower than the original estimates. On one 
construction contract alone, for example, costs were 36 percent less 
than anticipated. Also, modern communications technology makes it 
unnecessary to have large staffs at the Pentagon to manage dispersed 
operations.
  Mr. President, in 1990 Congress transferred responsibility for the 
operation, maintenance, and renovation of the Pentagon from the General 
Services Administration to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 
Congress recognized that the serious structural problems of the 
Pentagon building had to be addressed without further delay, and we 
took this action to get the long overdue project moving forward. 
Congress earmarked the $1.2 billion DoD would have paid to GSA in rent 
for the next 12 or 13 years as a break even way to pay for the 
renovations. This $1.2 billion was not based on projected renovation 
costs; it was simply a sum that was available and seemed a logical way 
to fund the renovation. Congress also provided the Department of 
Defense great flexibility in managing this large and complex project.
  Since fiscal year 1994, the Senate Appropriations Committee has 
required the Secretary of Defense to certify that the total cost of 
Pentagon renovation will not exceed $1,218 million. But this 
$1.2 billion cap does not include all the renovation costs. In fact, 
there are four catogories of expenses which add substantial amounts to 
the total. For example, the Pentagon estimates the cost of buying and 
installing information management and telecommunications equipment is 
$750 million. This amount is not part of the $1.2 billion cap. Neither 
is the heating and refrigeration plant, the classified waste 
incinerator, the furniture, or the 780,000 square feet of leased spaces 
for people who must be moved during the construction. A figure of $1.2 
billion is misleading; the expense of renovating the Pentagon easily 
exceeds $2 billion.

  Last year the Senate passed my amendment to cut Pentagon Renovation 
expenses by $100 million. During conference, however, the conferees 
agreed to eliminate that requirement and instead directed the Defense 
Department to review the Pentagon's renovation plans and recommend cost 
saving options. In fact, this review had been underway since March of 
1995. A March, 1995 Pentagon press release stated:

       This review will include re-examination of all lower cost 
     options. At a time when the Secretary has initiated efforts 
     to improve housing for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
     marines, we need to do all we can to insure that dollars 
     being spent for other infrastructure projects are not being 
     taken away from the very high priority of improving the 
     lifestyles of our men and women in uniform.

       I agree with this sentiment, and now I'd like to ensure 
     that we turn these words into actions.
  This well publicized review was supposed to produce a report which 
was due in February of this year. We didn't get that report, but on 
June 5 the Armed Services Committee staff did receive a one-page memo 
which states the Defense Department has found a savings of $37 million 
and will continue to look for more. A reduction of $37 million out of a 
total of $1.2 billion is not what I consider an aggressive response to 
our call to reduce costs.
  Mr. President, 15 months ago the Pentagon itself publicly announced 
the intent to reduce the cost of this project. The Defense Department 
identified a new spending target only after last year's threat of a 
reduced cap and after I announced at the Readiness Subcommittee markup 
on April 30 that I would introduce a similar amendment this year if I 
was not convinced by the Pentagon's long-overdue report. Well, that 
report is not here. I am not convinced that $37 million is the best the 
Pentagon can do in the way of savings. The only way in which we can 
force additional savings is to keep up the pressure. That is what my 
amendment does.
  Mr. President, Americans have been asked to tighten their belts and 
they expect no less from their Government. The Pentagon must be 
expected to do the same.
  I yield the floor and urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment conforms to the Senate-
passed authorization that places a ceiling on the Pentagon renovation 
fund. It has been cleared by both sides.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we do support this to conform with the 
authorization bill as passed by the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment No. 
4489 is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4489) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4566

   (Purpose: To increase the funding level available to continue the 
  Maritime Technology program to $50,000,000 within available RDT&E, 
      Defense-Wide appropriations and provide appropriate offsets)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call before the Senate amendment No. 
4566.

[[Page S7932]]

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

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Lott, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4566.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Before the period on page 30, line 13, insert: ``: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     $50,000,000 shall be available for the Maritime Technology 
     program and $3,580,000 shall be available for the Focused 
     Research Initiatives program''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is to increase the funding level 
available to the Maritime Technology Program to $50 million within the 
available research and development funds of the defensewide 
appropriations to provide for appropriate offsets, and it is an item 
that I have introduced on behalf of Senator Lott, and I ask for its 
consideration.
  Mr. INOUYE. This amendment has been cleared and approved by both 
sides.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection to amendment No. 
4566, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4566) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I ask 
unanimous consent that Michael Montelongo be admitted to the floor 
during the consideration of this Defense appropriations bill. He is a 
congressional fellow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4490

    (Purpose: To set aside $10,000,000 for the United States-Japan 
                      Management Training Program)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in behalf of Senators Bingaman, Domenici, 
and Santorum, I call for the immediate consideration of amendment No. 
4490.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Bingaman, for 
     himself, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Santorum, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4490.

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

       On page 30, line 13, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided, That, of such amount, $10,000,000 is 
     available for the United States-Japan Management Training 
     Program''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment would allocate $10 
million within the DOD university research initiatives program element 
61103D for the United States-Japan Management Training Program.
  This program was begun in fiscal year 1991 at my initiative. It has 
enjoyed the support of both the Armed Services and the Appropriations 
Committees since its inception and I have been very grateful for the 
support of the senior Senators from Alaska and Hawaii. The goal of the 
program is to train American scientists and engineers and business 
managers in the Japanese language as part of their graduate educations 
and then place them in Japanese research institutions for internships 
or fellowships where they could learn firsthand how the Japanese 
research and development system--second only to our own at more than 
$100 billion per year--functions. They could then later in their 
careers in American industry and government help tap and build bridges 
to the Japanese research efforts in their areas of expertise. 
Essentially, this was an effort on a modest scale to learn from the 
Japanese success in tapping our research enterprise through such 
fellowships at our universities.
  By all reports--and there have been several thorough reviews of this 
program--the program, as run by the Air Force Office of Scientific 
Research [AFOSR], has done an impressive job of achieving its 
objectives. Nineteen universities from around the country have received 
grants under the program and there has been significant cost-sharing 
from non-Federal sources to match funds provided by AFOSR.
  Unfortunately, in fiscal year 1996, AFOSR was only able to fund the 
program at $2 million from its own resources after several years in 
which DARPA had provided AFOSR $10 million per year for the program. 
Essentially, the program got caught up in the politics of the 
Technology Reinvestment Project [TRP], even though the Japan program's 
focus was only peripherally related to the TRP's focus on government-
industry technology partnerships.
  Earlier this year, the Senate Armed Services Committee in its report 
provided discretion for the Pentagon to allocate up to $10 million to 
the Japan program from either PE61102F, the Air Force's defense 
research sciences program element, or PE61103D, the Office of Secretary 
of Defense's university research initiatives program element. The Armed 
Services Committee also directed AFOSR to ensure that cost-sharing from 
non-Federal sources should match AFOSR funds to the maximum extent 
practicable in future grant awards.
  The Appropriations Committee in its report on the pending bill also 
urged the Pentagon to fund this program up to the $10 million level in 
its report language on the university research initiatives program 
element. I agree with the Appropriations Committee that the university 
research initiatives line is the more appropriate source for funds for 
this program, although the Air Force Office of Scientific Research 
should continue to manage it. I very much appreciate the Appropriations 
Committee's continuing support for the program. My amendment would take 
the extra step of insuring the full $10 million is really available to 
the program. I believe that taking this step is warranted in light of 
the great success the program has enjoyed in achieving its goals. I 
hope that the managers of the bill can support taking this additional 
step in supporting the Japan program.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment and yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. This amendment earmarks $10 million for the U.S.-Japan 
Management Training program. Both authorization and appropriations 
include supporting report language, and it has been cleared by both 
sides, Mr. President.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I concur with the statement of the 
Senator from Hawaii. This is a matter that needs to be adopted to 
conform with the action taken by the authorizing committees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 4490 is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4490) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4462

  (Purpose: To provide $4,000,000 for the procurement of a real-time, 
              automatic cargo tracking and control system)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in behalf of Senator Feinstein, I call up 
amendment No. 4462 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mrs. Feinstein, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4492.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 29, line 10, strike out ``1998.'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``1998: Provided, That of the funds appropriated 
     in this paragraph, $4,000,000 shall be available for the 
     procurement of a real-time, automatic cargo tracking and 
     control system.''.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my 
amendment to make $4 million from the Army's Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation available to acquire a real-time,

[[Page S7933]]

demonstrated, automatic cargo tracking and control system. This cargo 
tracking and control system is designed to assure that the smooth flow 
of cargo and to reduce the occurrence of misplaced cargo at Army ports. 
This demonstrated cargo tracking mechanism makes it possible for the 
manager of a port, rail yard, or other cargo distribution area to know 
where each container is and to move those containers without risk of 
being lost.
  The Army has already witnessed massive unreported but costly loss of 
cargo location in storage following Vietnam and Desert Storm. The Army 
made previous attempts to purchase this tracking system but was unable 
to do so due to funding constraints. It is my understanding that the 
Army Material Command would like to use $4 million from Army Research, 
Development, Technology, and Evaluation budget line PE0603804A.
  I am pleased that this amendment is acceptable and I thank the 
managers of the bill.
  Mr. INOUYE. This amendment appropriates $4 million to be made 
available for the procurement of a real-time, automatic cargo tracking 
and control system. It has been cleared by both sides, Mr. President.
  Mr. STEVENS. I do concur in this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 4462 is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4462) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4442

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call before the Senate amendment No. 
4442.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4442.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have called this amendment before the 
Senate on behalf of Senator Bond and Senator Ford. It is an amendment 
that will prevent the reduction of the funds that are available under 
authorized program activities for the National Guard, and it has been 
cleared on both sides. It does indicate that if additional funds are 
required for a program, project or activity of a higher priority than 
any other in future acts, they should be submitted to Congress under 
section 1997 of the Defense Authorization Act.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4452

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds to inactivate or 
reduce any unit of special operation forces of the Army National Guard)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I apologize to the Senate. The number 
should have been 4452. I mistakenly called up 4442. I ask the previous 
amendment be set aside. We do not want to call it up or recall it, just 
not bring it before the Senate at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. And that the amendment we consider now be the amendment 
for Mr. Bond, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Lott, which is 4452.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Bond, for 
     himself, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Lott, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4452.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 88, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 8099. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended--
       (1) to reduce the number of units of special operations 
     forces of the Army National Guard during fiscal year 1997;
       (2) to reduce the authorized strength of any such unit 
     below the strength authorized for the unit as of September 
     30, 1996; or
       (3) to apply any administratively imposed limitation on the 
     assigned strength of any such unit at less than the strength 
     authorized for that unit as of September 30, 1996.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, as cochairman of the Senate National Guard 
Caucus, I join with my colleague, Senator Bond, to thank my good friend 
Senator Stevens and his ranking member Senator Inouye for including our 
amendment prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to inactivate any 
units of Special Operation Forces of the Army National Guard in the 
managers amendment.
  This issue has just been brought to Senator Bond's and my attention. 
From all indications, the U.S. Special Operations Command has decided 
on their own to inactivate two Army National Guard Special Forces 
battalions by September 1998.
  This inactivation represents a loss of 802 individuals--or one-third 
of the Army National Guard Special Forces structure. This is not only a 
complete surprise to me and Senator Bond, but also to the Department of 
Defense.
  Upon hearing of this plan, I asked my staff to check with the 
Pentagon to see if they knew of this proposal and had given their 
approval. Much to my dismay, I found out this was new to them as well.
  The Special Operations Command tells us that these National Guard 
units are excess. However, a closer examination of the facts indicates 
that the actual motive behind this proposal is to harvest moneys to be 
spent on active forces. It is my understanding that the Special 
Operations Command did not even bother coordinating these proposed 
reductions with the leadership of the National Guard Bureau, the Army 
National Guard, or the active duty Army.
  I believe this is the first step by the Special Operations Command 
for the total elimination of Special Forces in the National Guard.
  The National Guard Special Forces units--the 19th and 20th Groups--
are made up from the following States: Alabama, Utah, Mississippi, 
Florida, West Virginia, Colorado, Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois, 
Virginia, Washington, Ohio, Rhode Island, California, and Kentucky.
  These Special Forces groups are at the highest personnel readiness 
levels in history. Just recently, they proved their mission readiness 
during Operation Uphold Democracy when they made up over one-half of 
the U.S. Special Forces presence in Haiti.
  Mr. President, the Special Operations Command's proposal to reduce 
these National Guard units does not appear to be based on any thorough 
analysis of force structure required or cost comparison savings between 
Active Components and Reserve Components units.
  It was because of decisions like this that Senator Bond and I joined 
Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain and others to co-sponsor an amendment 
to the 1997 Defense authority bill calling for a complete review of our 
military force structure needs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from 
the adjutant general of the State of Kentucky, Gen. John Groves, be 
printed in the Record following my remarks.
  Mr. President, I again thank the chairman and ranking member and 
their staffs for their assistance in this matter.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Military Affairs, 
           Office of the Adjutant General,
                                      Frankfort, KY, July 5, 1996.
     Hon. Wendell H. Ford,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Ford: I have just become aware of a proposal 
     by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to 
     inactivate two Army National Guard Special Forces Battalions 
     by September 1998. This represents 802 ARNG spaces or one-
     third of the Army National Guard Special Forces structure.
       As you may recall, USSOCOM conducted a comprehensive review 
     of requirements during the 1990-92 timeframe. This review 
     identified that two SF Groups were excess to requirements in 
     light of the end of the Cold War. At that time, a 
     determination was made to inactivate one group each from the 
     Guard and USAR. The 1993 Offsite Agreement resulted in a 
     determination that both USAR groups would inactivate and both 
     Guard groups would remain in the structure.
       Upon inactivation of the two USAR groups, the Adjutants 
     General, with the full support

[[Page S7934]]

     of the National Guard Bureau, committed to ensuring that the 
     readiness levels of these two groups were appropriately 
     maintained. This was accomplished by absorbing highly 
     qualified SF soldiers from the inactivating USAR units and 
     intensively managing and resourcing the other shortfalls. 
     Today, the 19th and 20th Groups are at the highest personnel 
     readiness levels in history. Further evidence of their 
     mission readiness was proven during Operation Uphold 
     Democracy, when one-half of the U.S. Special Forces presence 
     in Haiti was from the National Guard.
       This proposal by USSOCOM to reduce these SF units does not 
     appear to be based on any thorough analysis of force 
     structure required or cost comparison savings between Active 
     Component and Reserve Component units. It seems to be an 
     attempt by USSOCOM to capture dollars at the expense of the 
     Reserve Component without regard to any hard facts. These 
     reductions will most likely jeopardize the ninety-five SF 
     positions in Kentucky. However, the most critical aspect of 
     these reductions is the loss of highly skilled/trained 
     soldiers/units at a considerable savings in OPTEMPO and 
     PERSTEMPO costs at a time when the probability of extensive 
     participation in military operations other than war, such as 
     in Haiti, is at an all-time high. The skills and equipment 
     these soldiers possess to accomplish state and federal 
     missions at minimum costs cannot be overstated.
       Your assistance in stopping any further reduction in 
     Special Forces Units would be very much appreciated. I am 
     available to discuss this matter or answer any questions you 
     may have either personally or by telephone at your 
     convenience.
           Sincerely,

                                           John R. Groves, Jr.

                                          Brigadier General, KYNG,
                                                 Adjutant General.
       P.S. In order to lose no time, I directed that background 
     materials be sent to you by Fax on 3 July. This letter is my 
     position relative to those materials.

  Mr. STEVENS. Again, this is the same item discussed before. It is 
what I would call a preventive amendment and really instructs that the 
funds cannot be obligated to reduce the number of units of Special 
Forces in the Army National Guard for the year 1997, and we believe 
that it is consistent with existing law. It just indicates that those 
funds shall be expended for the purpose authorized only.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to advise the Senate that 
this amendment has been cleared and approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 4452 is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4452) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 4572

      (Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Army to establish 
 subcontracting goals for certain procurement using funds appropriated 
                              by the bill)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of Mr. Shelby and Mr. Heflin, I 
call up amendment No. 4572 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Shelby, for 
     himself and Mr. Heflin, proposes an amendment numbered 4572.

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

       On page 88, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 8099. (a) The Secretay of the Army shall ensure that 
     solicitations for contracts for unrestricted procurement to 
     be entered into using funds appropriated for the Army by this 
     Act include, where appropriate, specific goals for 
     subcontracts with small businesses, small disadvantaged 
     businesses, and women-owned small businesses.
       (b) The Secretary shall ensure that any subcontract entered 
     into pursuant to a solicitation referred to in subsection (a) 
     that meets a specific goal referred to in that subsection is 
     credited toward the overall goal of the Army for subcontracts 
     with the businesses referred to in that subsection.

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment 
designed to aid small business in this time of consolidation and 
reduced Federal spending. Over the last few years, as the Army has 
reduced its contracting personnel strength, I have seen larger and 
larger small business set-aside contracts. This process is known as 
bundling. Unfortunately, when the bundled contract values approach $50 
million annually, the number of firms eligible to compete is greatly 
reduced. The pressure on small businesses is further increased by the 
Army's failure to place firm small business subcontracting targets in 
its unrestricted requests for proposals.
  My amendment would, therefore, require the Army to place firm small 
business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business 
subcontracting targets in appropriate unrestricted RFP's. These 
subcontracts would then count toward the Army's small business set-
aside goal. This amendment would not, however, increase the percentage 
of work being set aside for small business.
  As this amendment is beneficial to small business and will not affect 
the Army's procurement workload, I hope my colleagues will fully 
support it.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared. It 
relates to small business activities and contracts, and provides 
disadvantaged businesses and women-owned small businesses a slight 
advantage.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have examined the amendment. There is 
no objection to this amendment from this side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 4572 is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4572) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4564

 (Purpose: To require a report from the Secretary of the Air Force and 
          the Director of the Office of Personnel Management)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the clerk to lay before the Senate 
my amendment No. 4564.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4564.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following 
     general provision:
       Sec.   . (a) The Secretary of the Air Force and the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall submit a 
     joint report describing in detail the benefits, allowances, 
     services, and any other forms of assistance which may or 
     shall be provided to any civilian employee of the Federal 
     government or to any private citizen, or to the family of 
     such an individual, who is injured or killed while traveling 
     on an aircraft owned, leased, chartered, or operated by the 
     Government of the United States.
       (b) The report required by subsection (a) above shall be 
     submitted to the Congressional defense committees and to the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives not later than December 15, 1996.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a general provision which 
requires the Secretary of the Air Force and the Director of the Office 
of Personnel Management to submit a joint report describing in detail 
the benefits, allowances, services, and other forms of assistance which 
may or shall be provided to any civilian employee of the Federal 
Government or to any private citizen, or to the family of such an 
individual, who is injured or killed while traveling in an aircraft 
owned, leased, chartered, or operated by the Government of the United 
States.
  This report is to be submitted to the congressional defense 
committees, the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate, and the 
Committee on Governmental Reform Oversight of the House, no later than 
December 15, 1996.
  This report is needed because we have had some recent accidents--the 
terrible accident involving Commerce Secretary Brown and other 
accidents--of military aircraft on which civilians who were not 
employees of the Federal Government were killed, as a result of the 
accident.
  I am seeking a study to determine the fairness of the situation with 
regard to people who may be asked, invited, by the Government to 
perform

[[Page S7935]]

what amounts to semiofficial tasks, and they are involved in missions 
that are undertaken on behalf of the United States, and they are killed 
as a result of an aircraft accident.
  There has been some indications that some of these people do not have 
the coverage of benefits and other assistance that employees of the 
Government have, and that their survivors do not have the assistance of 
the laws that are in effect for survivors of those who were official 
employees. I wish to present to the Senate and the Congress next year 
legislation to see if we can correct this situation.
  There was a similar concept in World War II that I recall. We called 
them the dollar-a-year persons. They were placed on the payroll and 
received $1 in order that they might be considered government employees 
so their survivors, in the event of disaster, were given the same 
consideration as the survivors of those who were government employees.
  I do not ask the Senate, the Congress, at this time, to try to 
correct this, because I think there is sort of a patchwork quilt out 
there of benefits for survivors. I want to be able to consider this 
matter in the next session, as I indicated.
  The difficulty is that, in almost all instances, these aircraft are 
military aircraft, but some of them, now, are leased and some of them 
are actually leased for the United States but operated under other 
departments than the Department of Defense. So this has to be a 
comprehensive report for us to see what is, really, the situation under 
this patchwork quilt that I mentioned, and see if we can find some way 
to be fair and treat these survivors honorably, without regard to which 
agency of the Federal Government was in charge of the aircraft and 
without regard to whether or not they were, in fact, employees of the 
United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to advise the Senate that 
this measure has been cleared and approved by both managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, amendment No. 4564 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4564) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4550

    (Purpose: To require a report on meeting Department of Defense 
               procurements of propellant raw materials)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
4550 be called up for immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Lautenberg, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4550.

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

       On page 88, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 8099. (a) Not later than March 1, 1997, the Deputy 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the defense Committees a 
     report on Department of Defense procurement of propellant raw 
     materials.
       (b) The report shall include the following:
       (1) The projected future requirements of the Department of 
     Defense for propellant raw materials, such as nitrocellulose.
       (2) The capacity, ability, and production cost rates of the 
     national technology and industrial base, including 
     Government-owned, contractor-operated facilities, contractor 
     owned and operated facilities, and Government-owned, 
     Government-operated facilities, for meeting such 
     requirements.
       (3) The national security benefits of preserving in the 
     national technology and industrial base contractor owned and 
     operated facilities for producing propellant raw materials, 
     including nitrocellulose.
       (4) The extent to which the cost rates for production of 
     nitrocellulose in Government-owned, contractor-operated 
     facilities is lower because of the relationship of those 
     facilities with the Department of Defense that such rates 
     would be without that relationship.
       (5) The advantages and disadvantages of permitting 
     commercial facilities to compete for award of Department of 
     Defense contracts for procurement of propellant raw 
     materials, such as nitrocellulose.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the 
managers of this bill in approving this amendment. The amendment is 
straightforward. It asks the Deputy Secretary of Defense to provide a 
report, not later than March 1, 1997, to the Defense committees on 
examining the advantages and disadvantages of allowing commercial 
facilities to compete for future contracts of propellant raw material 
requirements, such as nitrocellulose.
  The report shall include an assessment of first, the projected future 
procurement requirements for propellant raw material, such as 
nitrocellulose; second, the capacity, ability, and production cost 
rates of the national technology and industrial base to satisfy DOD 
requirements; third, the national security advantage of preserving 
contractor owned, contractor operated facilities as part of the 
industrial base; and finally, the extent to which government owned, 
contractor operated rates for nitrocellulose are reduced as a result of 
their relationship with the DOD.
  Nitrocellulose is the basic chemical in the propellant mixture that 
provides the propulsion power for a projectile or cartridge, such as 
for the 120 millimeter target practice cartridge used on the M1A2 tank 
for gunnery training.
  Because of the shrinking Defense procurement budget, the Department 
of the Army had directed the production of propellant to its Government 
owned, contractor operated facility located at the Radford Army 
Ammunition Plant in Virginia in order to keep its industrial base 
operating. However, this decision has precluded a commercial facility 
in my home State from competing for certain grades of nitrocellulose. 
This commercial facility wants to compete for future contracts 
beginning in fiscal year 1999.
  Mr. President, this study is intended to make information available 
to help the Congress and the administration make an informed decision 
on this issue in the future. Therefore, Mr. President, I am pleased 
that my colleagues support this amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment calls for a report on DOD 
procurement of propellant raw materials such as nitrocellulose.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have examined this. There have been 
some technical changes made at our request. We do not object to the 
amendment offered on behalf of the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 4550 is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4550) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4534

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Air Force to carry out a 
       cost-benefit analysis of consolidating the ground station 
          infrastructure supporting polar orbiting satellites)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call before the Senate amendment No. 
4534, offered by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Murkowski, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4534.

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

       On page 88, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 8099. Not later than six months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall 
     submit to Congress a cost-benefit analysis of consolidating 
     the ground station infrastructure of the Air Force that 
     supports polar orbiting satellites.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment 
that deals with requiring a report from the Air Force on the cost-
benefit analysis of consolidating the ground station infrastructure of 
the Air Force that supports polar orbiting satellites. At present, 
there are several. We seek

[[Page S7936]]

to discover whether it would be cost effective to consolidate those.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared and 
approved by both managers.
  Mr. STEVENS. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, amendment No. 4534 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4534) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have just completed a series of 
amendments that would have taken about--well, about 12 hours under 
cloture. So I am grateful to the Senate for an opportunity to proceed 
with our bill.
  I would now like to announce to the Senate we would like Members who 
have amendments that they wish to present that have not been cleared to 
come to the floor. We will be pleased to consider any amendment and see 
if we can handle it as expeditiously as we have these that we have 
presented to the Senate. I might add, many of those amendments were 
modified substantially before we agreed to them.
  So we look forward to that opportunity with regard to the rest of 
these amendments that have been filed before cloture. The leaders, I am 
informed, will look at this situation somewhere around 1 o'clock to 
determine whether we should proceed with our cloture vote.
  At present, I think we could announce to the Senate, from the way we 
look at the amendments that have been submitted to us for review and 
were submitted to the Senate under the cloture procedure, if we work 
cooperatively we should be able to finish this bill by 7 or 8 o'clock 
tonight. We can do that by limiting the amount of time a Member might 
seek for the debate of an amendment or by assuring Members we will be 
more than pleased to attempt to work with them to alter the form of the 
amendments so we could agree to an amendment and take it to conference.
  I am sure my friend from Hawaii joins me in urging Members now to 
come to the floor to present controversial amendments.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________