[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7937-S7971]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 4591

(Purpose: To ensure that work under Department of Defense contracts is 
                    performed in the United States)

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senator Specter, and Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], for himself, Mr. 
     Specter, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 4591.

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

       On page 88, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 8099. (a) Consideration of Percentage of Work 
     Performed in the United States.--None of the funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense under this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to evaluate competitive proposals 
     submitted in response to solicitations for a contracts for 
     the procurement of property or services except when it is 
     made known to the Federal official having authority to 
     obligate or expend such funds that--
       (1) a factor in such evaluation, as stated in the 
     solicitation, is the percentage of work under the contract 
     that the offeror plans to perform in the United States; and
       (2) a high importance is assigned to such factor.
       (b) Breach of Contract for Transferring Work Outside the 
     United States.--None of the funds appropriated to the 
     Department of Defense under this Act may be obligated or 
     expended to procure property or services except when it is 
     made known to the Federal official having authority to 
     obligate or expend such funds that each contract for the 
     procurement of property or services includes a clause 
     providing that the contractor is deemed to have breached the 
     contract if the contractor performs significantly less work 
     in the United States than the contractor stated, in its 
     response to the solicitation for the contract, that it 
     planned to perform in the United States.
       (c) Effect of Breach on Contract Awards and the Exercise of 
     Options Under Covered Contracts.--None of the funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense under this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to award a contract or exercise an 
     option under a contract, except when it is made known to the 
     Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such 
     funds that the compliance of the contractor with its 
     commitment to perform a specific percentage of work under 
     such a contract inside the United States is a factor of high 
     importance in any evaluation of the contractor's past 
     performance for the purposes of the contract award or the 
     exercise of the option.
       (d) Requirement for Offerors to Perform Estimate.--None of 
     the funds appropriated to the Department of Defense under 
     this Act may be obligated or expended to award a contract for 
     the procurement of property or services unless the 
     solicitation for the contract contains a clause requiring 
     each offerer to provide an estimate of the percentage of work 
     that the offeror will perform in the United States.
       (e) Waivers.--
       (1) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall not apply with 
     respect to funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     under this Act when it is made known to the Federal official 
     having authority to obligate or expend such funds that an 
     emergency situation or the national security interests of the 
     United States requires the obligation or expenditure of such 
     funds.
       (2) Subsections (a), (b) and (c) may be waived on a 
     subsection-by-subsection basis for all contracts described in 
     subsection (f) if the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy 
     Secretary of Defense--
       (A) makes a written determination, on a nondelegable basis, 
     that--
       (1) the subsection cannot be implemented in a manner that 
     is consistent with the obligations of the United States under 
     existing Reciprocal Procurement Agreements with defense 
     allies; and
       (2) the implementation of the subsection in a manner that 
     is inconsistent with existing Reciprocal Procurement 
     Agreements would result in a net loss of work performed in 
     the United States; and
       (B) reports to the Congress, within 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, on the reasons for such 
     determinations.
       (f) Scope of Coverage.--This section applies--
       (1) to any contract for any amount greater than the 
     simplified acquisition threshold (as specified in section 
     2302(7) of title 10, United States Code), other than a 
     contract for a commercial item as defined in section 
     2302(3)(I); and
       (2) to any contract for items described in section 
     2534(a)(5) of such title.
       (g) Construction.--Subsections (a), (b), and (c) may not be 
     construed to diminish the primary importance of 
     considerations of quality in the procurement of defense-
     related property or services.
       (h) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect 
     to contracts entered into on or after 60 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that tries to make our 
present Buy American Act effective on defense contracts. What it says 
is that when a defense contractor submits a bill, the defense 
contractor should indicate what percentage of that contract is going to 
be manufactured here in the United States, and then that should be a 
high factor in the determination by the Defense Department in 
consideration for that contract. And we also make clear that this is 
not to violate any agreement, any treaty we have with any other country 
and any memorandum of understanding we have with any other country.
  The reality is that the Buy American Act just has not worked. I had 
the experience of being on an American base and seeing a truck made in 
another country, a U.S. military truck there, and I thought, you know, 
we really ought to be buying trucks made in the United States of 
America. That is just one small illustration.
  I ask, Mr. President, unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
letters from the Maritime Trades Department, from the International 
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, from the International 
Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture 
Workers, from the AFL-CIO, and a letter from the Timken Co.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S7938]]


         Maritime Trades Department, American Federation of Labor 
           and Congress of Industrial Organizations,
                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 1996.
       Dear Senator: When the Senate takes up the FY97 defense 
     appropriations bill, it will consider an amendment designed 
     to provide preference to Department of Defense (DOD) 
     contractors who maintain significant domestic production 
     capabilities. The Maritime Trades Department, AFL-CIO (MTD) 
     urges adoption of this amendment, which will be offered by 
     Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) to help maintain the defense 
     industrial base.
       If adopted, this provision will provide a mechanism for 
     assuring the American public that the nation's defense 
     dollars are being utilized to provide the highest possible 
     level of domestic employment. This is an important point to 
     consider. Since 1987, over one million skilled American 
     workers in the defense industry have lost their employment. 
     These job losses resulted from military downsizing and, to a 
     growing extent, American defense firms' expanding use of 
     overseas outsourcing to fulfill their contractual 
     obligations. In 1995, over $1.3 billion in foreign 
     subcontracts and purchases were made as part of DOD 
     contracts.
       The Simon amendment requires the DOD to consider projected 
     levels of domestic production when evaluating competitive 
     procurement proposals. Defense firms are expected to reach 
     stated domestic targets. In the event foreign outsourcing is 
     significantly higher than declared, they may be deemed 
     ineligible for renewal of that contract. The amendment also 
     contains appropriate waivers for national security and 
     international emergencies and provisions to guarantee the 
     primacy of product quality in defense procurement decisions.
       These requirements are hardly onerous when one realizes 
     what is at stake. Americans working in this strategic field 
     possess unique industrial skills that are vital to our 
     nation's future, but their employment opportunities are being 
     jeopardized by unfair trade and low-cost, heavily subsidized 
     foreign competition. The aerospace industry, long considered 
     the linchpin of our defense industrial system, may suffer the 
     loss of 250,000 jobs by the year 2000.
       Aside from the economic consideration involved, it simply 
     is unacceptable for the DOD to allow defense contractors to 
     increase their dependence on foreign-source military 
     equipment and services. It is in this nation's vital interest 
     to maintain a viable network of skilled defense workers so 
     that our armed forces can respond to any contingency in an 
     increasingly unstable world. Other nations understand this 
     need, and until recently, so did America. Essentially, the 
     Simon amendment would provide the necessary framework to 
     insure that precious defense dollars be use to underwrite a 
     competitive American base.
       In closing, the MTD and its affiliates urge you to support 
     the Simon amendment when it is considered as part of the FY97 
     defense appropriations measure.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Michael Sacco,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                      International Association of


                             Machinists and Aerospace Workers,

                                Upper Marlboro, MD, June 24, 1996.
       Dear Senator: We are writing on behalf of the International 
     Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers to voice our 
     strong support for an amendment to defense appropriations 
     sponsored by Senator Paul Simon. The amendment, which has 
     already passed the House of Representatives, is needed to 
     maintain the integrity of defense spending by enabling U.S. 
     taxpayers to know how much of their money is used to retain 
     and create jobs in the United States.
       Specifically, the Simon amendment would require contractors 
     to state during the bidding process what percentage of work 
     performed under a defense contract would be kept in the U.S. 
     The amendment further provides that if a contractor is 
     awarded the contract and fails to honor its commitment, it 
     would be considered to be in breach of the contract and 
     render itself ineligible for contract renewal.
       This amendment makes good sense. American taxpayers should 
     know whether they are funding defense programs that result in 
     jobs at home. The current practice which permits defense 
     contractors to operate in a shadow by engaging in the 
     practice of seeking subcontractors outside the U.S. to 
     perform portions of their contracts must be put to a stop. 
     This practice has resulted in increased profits for the 
     defense contractor with no savings passed along to the U.S. 
     taxpayer. Most importantly, it has resulted in the loss of 
     major opportunities for U.S. workers.
       As jobs in the defense industry continue to be drastically 
     reduced, this issue has become even more important. Total 
     employment in the private sector defense industry declined by 
     more than one million workers between 1987 and 1995. Defense 
     related employment for aircraft, missiles, space vehicles, 
     and related parts today is less than half of what it was in 
     1987. At the same time defense related employment is 
     declining, government expenditures on defense and defense 
     related projects involving work performed abroad continues to 
     soar.
       Defense contractors should not be in the business of 
     subcontracting technology and shipping work, funded by U.S. 
     taxpayers, offshore. Senators should, at the very least, be 
     aware of the economic impact that large defense contracts 
     will have on local communities and this impact should be a 
     major factor in awarding contracts.
       The Simon amendment accomplishes this goal by merely 
     obligating a defense contractor to state what percentage of 
     the contract's work will be performed in the U.S. It serves 
     as a ``truth in lending'' provision and will force a 
     contractor to be honest with itself and the United States 
     taxpayer before it submits a bid on federal government 
     defense work.
       The American people have a right to know--will their money 
     be going to create good and decent jobs at home, or will it 
     be going to pay for subcontracted defense work abroad? Once 
     again we urge your support for the Simon amendment.
           Very truly yours,
                                               George J. Kourpias,
     International President.
                                                                    ____

         International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, 
           Machine and Furniture Workers, AFL-CIO,
                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 1996.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the working men and women of the 
     International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, 
     Machine & Furniture Workers, AFL-CIO, I urge your support for 
     an amendment to defense appropriations to be offered by 
     Senator Paul Simon. This amendment, which has already passed 
     the House of Representatives, will enable the American public 
     to know whether their tax dollars are creating good-paying 
     defense jobs here in the United States, or whether they are 
     subsidizing foreign operations.
       Specifically, the Simon amendment would require contractors 
     during the bidding process to disclose what percentage of 
     work to be performed under a given defense contract would be 
     kept in the United States. It further provides that this 
     percentage be a factor in the awarding of the contract, and 
     that the failure of a contractor to honor its commitment, 
     constitutes a breach of the contract, rendering the 
     contractor ineligible for contract renewal.
       This amendment makes good common sense. American taxpayers 
     should have the right to know whether they are funding 
     defense programs which result in jobs at home. This amendment 
     would put an end to current practice which permits defense 
     contractors, without the public's knowledge, to ship work to 
     subcontractors outside of the United States. While defense 
     contractors have been the beneficiaries in the form of 
     enormous profits, the American worker has been the loser.
       Indeed, as defense work continues to decline in this 
     country, this issue will become of increased importance. 
     Between 1987 and 1995, total employment declined by more than 
     one million workers in the private sector defense industry. 
     Today, defense-related employment for aircraft, missiles, 
     space vehicles, and related parts today is less than half of 
     what it was in 1987.
       With jobs and job stability a major concern of all workers 
     in this country, the American people should have the right to 
     know whether their hard-earned tax dollars will be used to 
     create good-paying jobs at home, or whether they will be used 
     to subsidize operations overseas. I strongly urge your 
     support for the Simon amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                               William H. Bywater,
     International Union President.
                                                                    ____

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                      Washington, DC July 1, 1996.
       Dear Senator: Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) will offer an 
     amendment to the DOD appropriations bill, S. 1894, that would 
     help retain defense manufacturing capacity in the United 
     States. A similar amendment has already passed the House of 
     Representatives. The AFL-CIO strongly supports the Simon 
     amendment.
       Offshore production of United States defense products is an 
     increasing concern to defense workers as well as defense 
     strategists. The Simon amendment would give a contract 
     preference to manufacturers who promise to build in the 
     United States. Contracts would be required to disclose what 
     percentage of their product would be manufactured in the 
     U.S., and they would be held accountable for that percentage 
     for the duration of that contract. If a contractor failed to 
     meet its domestic production commitment, it would be 
     ineligible to renew that contract.
       The Simon amendment makes good sense by protecting defense 
     jobs, retaining the United States defense industrial base and 
     enhancing protection for advanced technologies by keeping 
     them in the United States. It also provides reasonable waiver 
     authority and excludes contracts under $100,000.
       At a time of defense downsizing, it makes little sense to 
     continue hollowing out our defense manufacturing capability. 
     Therefore the AFL-CLO strongly endorses the Simon amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Peggy Taylor,
     Director, Department of Legisltion.
                                                                    ____



                                               The Timken Co.,

                                                     July 9, 1996.

       I am writing to express the strong support of the Timken 
     Company for an amendment to be offered by Senator Paul Simon 
     during consideration of the Defense Appropriations

[[Page S7939]]

     bill for Fiscal Year 1997. The provision is similar to the 
     Durbin amendment accepted by the House in their FY97 spending 
     bill and would provide accountability by U.S. Government 
     agencies in defense procurement contracts.
       Under existing law and regulation, Americans are guaranteed 
     that their tax dollars will be used by the Department of 
     Defense in the procurement of goods and services in a manner 
     that maintains the ability to produce certain products 
     critical to our nation's defense. The purpose of these 
     statutes is to sustain our national security and economy by 
     helping to preserve the defense industrial base and the high-
     skilled, high wage jobs associated with it.
       Unfortunately, there is no mechanism, now under law, the 
     enforce these laws. Foreign producers consistently violate 
     the statute by including products in U.S. defense systems 
     that were mandated by Congress to be produced within the 
     United States. The effect is a short term cost savings of the 
     Pentagon with a permanent weakening of or industrial base. 
     Such foreign sourcing of key products causes American 
     producers to discontinue needed research and development, as 
     well as reduce domestic capacity. We slowly become vulnerable 
     by losing our long-term ability to produce critical defense 
     systems.
       For example, in late June, Defense Secretary Perry 
     announced that the department would conduct an internal 
     review of the possible illegal use of foreign high technology 
     bearings in U.S. missile systems (such as the patriot missile 
     and various air to air missile systems). Because these 
     bearings are essential for the systems to work, U.S. law 
     requires U.S.-made bearings to be used, when available, in 
     missiles procured by the U.S. government. It is only after 
     widespread abuse that this case received the attention 
     necessary within the Congress and the Administration to 
     prompt action. How many other situations simply go unnoticed 
     and unreported? Clearly, the law must be better enforced.
       The Simon amendment addresses the issue, by providing that 
     the percentage of work a defense contractor plans to perform 
     in the U.S. will be an important factor in the evaluation of 
     bids; a defense contract will be deemed to have been breached 
     if a contractor performs significantly less work in the U.S. 
     than promised in its contract solicitation; and such a 
     contractor will also be ineligible to have that contract 
     renewed.
       The amendment can be waived in a national emergency or for 
     national security reasons. Also there is specific reference 
     to not construing the provision in a manner that diminishes 
     the primary importance of quality in the product being 
     procured.
       Your strong support of the Simon amendment is requested for 
     a strong America. Thank you for your consideration of this 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Robert Lapp.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, here is a defense contractor. Let me just 
read one paragraph here.

       I am writing to express the strong support of the Timken 
     Company for an amendment to be offered by Senator Paul Simon 
     during consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill for 
     Fiscal Year 1997. . . .
       Unfortunately, there is no mechanism, now under law, to 
     enforce these [Buy American] laws. Foreign producers 
     consistently violate the statute by including products in 
     U.S. defense systems that were mandated by Congress to be 
     produced within the United States. The effect is a short term 
     cost savings for the Pentagon with a permanent weakening of 
     our industrial base. Such foreign sourcing of key products 
     causes American producers to discontinue needed research and 
     development, as well as reduce domestic capacity. We slowly 
     become vulnerable by losing our long-term ability to produce 
     critical defense systems.

  I think this is a security issue.
  What would happen, practically, when a company submits a bid, they 
would have to submit that they are going to spend 70 percent, 80 
percent, or whatever percent of this contract in the United States. 
Then, when the Defense Department reviews the contract, that should be 
a high factor--not the sole factor, but a high factor--in determining 
where the manufacturing should go.
  If a company submits a bid saying, ``We are going to produce 80 
percent in the United States,'' and then they produce 20 percent in the 
United States, that would be considered a breach of contract, and it 
would have to be considered in any future contracts by that company. I 
think it makes sense.
  A recent GAO study in April of 1996 found that other countries are 
much more pressing in terms of their defense establishment in how they 
insist their defense money is spent within their own country. The GAO 
found out, among other things, that U.S. companies have entered into 
offset agreements totaling more than $84 billion since the mid-1980's. 
In order to get a contract in another country, we have agreed to $84 
billion in manufacturing and purchasing of their products in another 
country.
  I understand why some companies want to go abroad. China pays an 
average of $50 a month. Wichita, KS, now makes part of what it made in 
Wichita, KS, in China. I understand the cost savings there. We are not 
saying that cost savings cannot be a factor, but that a high factor has 
to be how much is manufactured in the United States.
  As the president of Timken Company said, there is a security factor 
here. We need to maintain our industrial base, our research. I am told 
that the McDonnell Douglas facility in St. Louis, where 500 employees 
have just been laid off, the company is subcontracting work to Finland, 
Spain, Australia, Germany and Switzerland for the F-18.
  Now, we are not saying that none of this work can go abroad. We are 
just saying it ought to be upfront in the contract.
  I am pleased to be joined by Senator Specter and Senator Harkin as 
cosponsors of this legislation. I hope it will be adopted by the 
Senate.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am sad to announce to the Senate that 
the Department of Defense has requested that we oppose this amendment 
because it would impose a burdensome and relevant complication on the 
evaluation process. This is a very difficult process to work out.
  The United States sells over $14 billion in military equipment 
overseas. We import about $1.3 billion. It is obvious that we have a 
substantial interest in continuing exports which lower the unit cost of 
our production that we must buy to maintain our own defense. The 
defense industry that is engaged in the export also has asked us to 
oppose this amendment.
  If a contractor selects a U.S. contractor and the U.S. contractor 
goes out of business or cannot perform and there is no other U.S. 
source, the net effect of this amendment would prohibit the prime 
contractor from seeking a subcontractor abroad from the country of one 
of our allies.
  This is a similar provision to the House bill. It will be in 
conference, and we will work out some of this issue in conference. 
Contrary to some of the reports I read in some of the papers this 
morning, the Defense Subcommittee does still confer, and we confer at 
length and ad nauseam sometimes, but we will confer on the issue 
because it is a House bill.

  One of the basic problems that we have is if we interfere with the 
prime contractor's ability to select the best subcontractor available, 
we are not only imposing a burden on the contractor to respond to a 
solicitation that he has presented based upon availability of 
competitive bidding from subcontractors, the net result, Mr. President, 
will be the increase in costs of the defense efforts of the United 
States, to the taxpayers of the United States.
  I view this amendment as being one which is very difficult to deal 
with because it is so appealing. What we are saying is the DOE policy 
with regard to evaluation factors would be legislated by Congress in 
such a way as to eliminate the ability of a contractor to look to a 
foreign source for a portion of the work that contractor commits to do 
on behalf of the Department of Defense at the taxpayers' expense and, 
by definition, a competitive contract.
  I believe this will nullify existing procurement agreements that we 
have. We have some 20 longstanding allies who buy a considerable amount 
of their military products from us. To a great extent, we see enormous 
entities in the industrial base. In the United States, many of the 
subcontractors are from overseas.
  This Senator and other Senators have been criticized for going to 
things like air shows, for instance. We go to trade shows and air shows 
to see who is out there, what is the strength of the United States vis-
a-vis the foreign supplier, and are we correct to the extent that we 
are even buying the $1.3 billion that we buy from overseas through the 
use of taxpayers' funds, and directly by our contractors who do buy 
from subcontractors overseas.
  I personally believe this is a very strong export business. Let me 
say, it is a $14 billion export we are looking

[[Page S7940]]

at. That export is a strong, strong portion of our industrial base. It 
represents a strong portion of our industrial base. If we were to adopt 
the approach of the Senator from Illinois and the approach represented 
in the House bill totally, in my judgment, we would place at risk this 
strong export business. Therefore, I am sad to say I intend to move to 
table the amendment, subject to the comments of my friend from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, at first blush, one must conclude this is 
a good amendment. In general, it says we Americans will purchase 
American goods. It is a very patriotic amendment. However, Mr. 
President, it is not a realistic amendment.
  As the chairman of the subcommittee has pointed out, we sell our 
allies and other friends over $14 billion worth of defense products. In 
return, we have purchased $1.8 billion. As everyone in this Chamber 
will say, trade is a two-way street. We cannot insist our allies 
purchase everything from us and we not purchase anything from them. If 
we were the only producers in the world, we may be able to dictate 
terms and impose our will on the rest of the world, but there are many 
other countries that are involved in defense production.
  This amendment of my friend from Illinois does provide the Secretary 
of Defense the authority to waive provisions of this amendment for NATO 
allies--for Israel, for Egypt, for Japan, and for Korea. But we do a 
lot of business with countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, 
Indonesia, all of South America, and all of Central America, and we may 
reach a point where we may find these friends of ours responding to our 
strict restrictions by saying: Well, if that is the way you feel about 
it, Mr. U.S., we will buy our aircraft from France. The Mirage is just 
as good. Or we might buy it from Britain. They are just as good.
  So, Mr. President, though at first blush this may seem like a very 
patriotic amendment, the effect may be one that none of us would want 
to happen to our industry. We may be the loser. So I join my chairman 
in this motion to table this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas--
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will withhold. I know the Senator from 
Illinois may want to speak. We are trying to work out a time to stack 
votes for a later time because there are some meetings going on that 
the leaders are involved in, as I understand it.
  I will just add this comment to my friend from Illinois. We now are 
becoming an industrial center for investment by foreign producers, 
whether it is in automobiles, aviation parts, or other types of 
production. We are reducing our industrial base. After all, we have 
reduced the amount of money spent by the taxpayers of the United States 
for procurement of military goods by 60 percent in the last 10 years. 
We have reduced it 60 percent. Now our industrial base is shrinking. As 
it shrinks, some of the foreign investors and foreign manufacturers are 
coming into our country and opening plants to take advantage of the 
expertise of our labor force, and they are producing some of the parts 
that we are exporting. This is saying to those same people who are 
investing in this country, creating jobs and preserving jobs here in 
our industrial base: That is fine. You can produce it here and we will 
export it, but you cannot bring into this country and compete with this 
country on subcontractors. I really think that is not the right policy.
  So while it will be a very difficult thing to convince the Members of 
the House to modify this, that is what we intend to do. We will not be 
able to do that if this amendment is adopted. We will have no 
negotiating room with the House at all. The export business of the 
United States is of sufficient importance that we must find a way. I do 
believe that, with the good will that exists in the House, we will find 
a way to reflect the concept that the House seeks, which is that we 
know what we are doing when these contracts are let, and that there 
literally be competition. But as long as we are insisting on 
competition, I do not think we ought to say we only want competition 
from U.S. sources when we are providing so much of the overseas market, 
as far as these military acquisitions are concerned.
  I urge Members to travel with us and look at this. It is an enormous 
market that we serve. Our military-industrial complex not only serves 
the military market abroad, but by producing the parts for aircraft, 
and parts for various types of vehicles we use, parts for our 
submarines, we are the parts supplier of the world.
  This amendment would put that in great jeopardy, and I think it 
should be tabled at the appropriate time. I will make the motion to 
table at the appropriate time. I want to defer that until I get an 
indication from the leadership of the proper time to request that the 
vote take place.

  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I buy many of the arguments that my friends 
from Hawaii and Alaska used. I voted for NAFTA. I voted for GATT. In 
general, we have to have reciprocity in terms of trade. But we also 
have, in theory, a Buy American Act, which is, frankly, toothless. So I 
think we need something that is a little stronger.
  Let me add that this amendment is more narrowly crafted than the 
House amendment. The House amendment introduced by my House colleague, 
Congressman Dick Durbin, is stronger than this amendment. But this 
amendment at least says, let us find out what percentages are made in 
the United States and what percentages abroad.
  In response to my friend from Alaska, who said this is going to mean 
a lot of work, I have a news release--and it is fairly typical--from 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense about various 
contracts. Here is a contract awarded to McDonnell Douglas that says, 
``Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri, 70 percent, and in the 
United Kingdom, 30 percent.'' So they are doing some of this right now. 
All we are saying is that the percent that is manufactured in the 
United States should be of high importance--not the sole consideration, 
but should be of high importance.
  Here is another one. Refinery Associates of Texas. ``Work will be 
performed in overseas locations.''
  Here is another contract that says, ``Work will be performed 43 
percent in Germany, 30 percent in Alabama, 22 percent in Michigan, 4 
percent in California.''
  So they are doing these things now. What we are doing is just 
ignoring how much is made in the United States. Here is another 
contrast as to how much would be done in the United States, how much in 
Germany, how much in England, how much in Italy, how much in Korea, how 
much in Australia. So they are doing this now. This is not an undue 
burden.
  Now, one argument they make is that this may cost a little more. It 
may cost a little more. I do not know what they pay for that foreign 
truck on an American base. Maybe we save a few dollars. But I think 
that when it comes to defense dollars, insofar as practically possible, 
we ought to be spending that money here at home. That is the reality. 
Again, I stress that there is a waiver where we have agreements with 
other countries and memoranda of understanding with other countries for 
any kind of emergency. I think this makes sense, and I urge my 
colleagues to reject the motion to table.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me just list some major sales in the 
time we have. As we listened to the Senator from Illinois, I made a 
list. These are recent major sales:
  C-130J to Britain, AH-64 Apache to Britain, AH-64 Apache to 
Netherlands, F-16 to South Korea, Corp-San development with Germany, F-
18 to Australia, F-18 to Spain, AV-8B co-production with Britain and 
Spain. That is the British area being built in the United States, a co-
production with Britain and Spain. And the MLRS rockets, which are so 
important to the Senator from Arkansas, to Germany and to Britain.
  Now, that is just 5 seconds of thinking about what we are doing. The 
impact of this amendment places those in jeopardy.

  Now, Mr. President, I am constrained to say that, the other night, a 
good friend of mine, who is a very intelligent person from academia, 
told me, ``You know, as we reduce our industrial base, if you in 
Congress continue to put restrictions on our American industry

[[Page S7941]]

so it cannot enter into cooperative agreements abroad, we will see the 
day come when we will be procuring all of our systems from abroad, 
because technology follows production.''
  Technology follows production. As we produce, we refine our systems, 
we develop new technology. If we are not involved in this production, 
we will not be able to afford the development costs and research costs 
to refine it. If we want to remain a leader in terms of production--
particularly now of aircraft, submarine, and military vehicles--we are 
going to have to understand that our allies throughout the world, who 
are buying our major projects, are going to insist that they be 
involved somehow in this overall business.
  Today, as I indicated, the balance is over $14 billion that we export 
versus about $1.3 billion we import. I do not believe that this 
amendment in its present form is in the best interest of the United 
States, and therefore I oppose it.
  Mr. President, I will put the Senate on notice that unless the leader 
disagrees, we will call for the vote in 10 minutes, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum in the meantime.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4569

   (Purpose: To impose additional conditions on the authority to pay 
             restructuring costs under defense contracts.)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in behalf of the Senator from New Jersey 
[Mr. Bradley], I ask for the immediate consideration of amendment No. 
4569.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The amendment will be considered.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Bradley, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4569.

  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. (1) Not later than April 1, 1997, the 
     Comptroller General shall, in consultation with the Inspector 
     General of the Department of Defense, the Secretary of 
     Defense, and the Secretary of Labor, submit to Congress a 
     report which shall include the following:
       (A) an analysis and breakdown of the restructuring costs 
     paid by or submitted to the Department of Defense to 
     companies involved in business combinations since 1993;
       (B) an analysis of the specific costs associated with 
     workforce reductions;
       (C) an analysis of the services provided to the workers 
     affected by business combinations;
       (D) an analysis of the effectiveness of the restructuring 
     costs used to assist laid off workers in gaining employment;
       (E) in accordance with Section 818 of 10 U.S.C. 2324, an 
     analysis of the savings reached from the business combination 
     relative to the restructuring costs paid by the Department of 
     Defense.
       (2) The report should set forth recommendations to make 
     this program more effective for workers affected by business 
     combinations and more efficient in terms of the use of 
     federal dollars.

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I offer an amendment regarding a 
Department of Defense [DOD] policy of paying restructuring costs to 
companies that are involved in a merger.
  Mr. State of New Jersey is currently feeling the effects of a 
defense-industry merger. As a result of the Lockheed-Martin merger, a 
satellite plant in East Windsor, NJ, will close, causing substantial 
job loss. I have therefore taken a strong interest in the current DOD 
policy.
  Under this policy, DOD reimburses restructuring costs to contractors 
that are involved in mergers that lead to savings for the DOD. DOD 
payments can be used for, among other things, worker and plant 
relocation, severance pay, early retirement incentives, and continued 
health benefits. This policy has been called payoffs for layoffs and 
blamed by some for the mergers in the industry.
  It is my belief that layoffs in the defense industry do not result 
from this DOD policy. Rather, due to the end of the cold war, defense 
layoffs have become inevitable. While we are no longer faced with a 
Soviet threat, we must now come to terms with our runaway debt. These 
major transformnations--the end of the cold war and a spiraling budget 
deficit--have made job loss in the defense industry a reality and 
necessity.
  It is my belief that this policy makes good sense. Defense cuts have 
led to overcapacity, which encouraged mergers and cost cutting. It is 
not the reimbursement but the defense cuts that lead to layoffs, and it 
is appropriate for DOD to pay a fraction of those savings for 
assistance to workers laid-off from the merger.
  In light of the end of the cold war, our priorities must be twofold. 
First, we should encourage the Defense Department and defense 
contractors to reduce the excessive buildup from the cold war era. Our 
second priority must be to determine how to best help workers in the 
defense industry who have been downsized.
  I have come to believe that the DOD policy meets the priorities I 
have stated. Indeed, it encourages contractors to achieve savings for 
the DOD while providing the affected workers with benefits they 
desperately need. In a perfect world, companies that downsize would 
provide their employees with a respectable severance package that would 
include extended health care benefits. All to often, though, laid-off 
employees find themselves without these benefits, struggling to put 
food on the table, or make the next mortgage payment.
  In order to clarify the confusion regarding this policy, I would urge 
the Defense Department to continue to ensure that the payments made are 
used solely for restructuring costs, with a strong emphasis on the 
employees laid off. I would also urge the DOD to continue to monitor 
the savings certified by the companies, ensuring that the savings are 
greater than the restructuring payments.
  My amendment therefore calls for the GAO to analyze the restructuring 
costs paid by the DOD and to consult with the Secretary of Labor to 
determine the effectiveness of the assistance provided to laid off 
workers. The report should ensure that the payments are being used for 
justified costs and that the workers laid off are treated fairly.
  It is my hope that this amendment will help my constituents in East 
Windsor and those around the country affected by defense downsizing. 
This amendment assures that these workers will not be ignored.
  Mr. INOUYE. This amendment is in response to the great number of 
mergers that we have found in the business community, and this 
amendment calls for a report to be issued by the Secretary of Defense 
and the Secretary of Labor, and that report shall include an analysis 
and breakdown of restructuring costs paid by or submitted to DOD, 
analysis of the specific costs associated with work force reductions, 
analysis of the services provided to the workers affected by business 
combinations, an analysis of the effectiveness of the restructuring 
costs used to assist laid-off workers in gaining employment.
  This amendment, Mr. President, has been approved by both managers.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Hawaii is correct. We 
have approved it. I hope, however, that the study requested will cover 
additional factors. I am one who believes that, if we had not had some 
of these restructurings and some of these consolidations of basic 
companies in the defense industrial base, we would have had the 
possibility of a loss of all of the companies involved in those 
consolidations. Because of the competitive aspect of our acquisitions, 
I think that more and more companies would have found they could not 
perform and meet the competition of those that were equally sharpening 
their pencils trying to think they could beat out the other company.
  I think it has been in the best interests of the United States that 
we have had selective consolidations and restructuring to preserve the 
industrial base. I hope a portion of this is directed toward the 
potential loss to the United States of the industrial base had the 
consolidations not taken place. But under the circumstances, I think 
the directions are broad enough to cover that, and I will pose no 
opposition to the amendment. It is a study we need; there is no 
question about it. But I hope it is balanced.

[[Page S7942]]

  Obviously, there are jobs lost and obviously there are costs from the 
reduction in the amount of procurement we are making. I just said we 
have reduced procurement by 60 percent. Anyone who thinks we are going 
to get the resultant production for the same costs or less than we were 
getting when we had the competition from a full industrial base is 
mistaken. Costs of industrial production are going up because the 
sources are being more limited, and there is additional cost to the 
taxpayer because of the inability of the limited number of companies to 
provide the competitive edge we used to have in terms of the industrial 
process. But I accept the amendment, and I am prepared to agree to it 
on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Without objection, the 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4569) 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on amendment No. 4591.


                           Amendment No. 4480

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that it be temporarily set aside to 
take up another amendment, which is amendment No. 4480.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Specter, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4480.

  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 29, line 20 before the period, insert: ``: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading 
     $46,600,000 shall be made available only for the Intercooled 
     Recuperated Gas Turbine Engine program''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I offer this amendment in the cloture 
proceedings for Senator Specter. It is a limitation to comply with a 
limitation in the authorization bill with regard to the availability of 
funds for the Intercooled Recuperated Gas Turbine Engine Program, and I 
believe it is a technical amendment that should be offered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, both managers approve the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4480) 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, may I inquire as to whether the Senator 
from Illinois wishes to make any further statement before I make a 
motion to table?
  Mr. SIMON. If I may have 3 minutes, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 4591

  Mr. SIMON. It was mentioned that other countries buy a great deal 
from us. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record right 
now the requirements of Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, 
Sweden, and the United Kingdom, all of which are more severe than the 
requirements that I suggest in this amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Foreign Government ``Local Content'' Requirements for Defense Contracts


                       Local Content Requirements

       A company in the United States that wants to sell defense-
     related marine equipment to governments in many other 
     industrialized nations must comply with offset or other 
     requirements that include a ``local content'' obligation to 
     produce 50% or more of the system within the customer's 
     country. ``Local content'' means that a U.S. company must 
     substitute its own production with sourcing and engaging 
     subcontractors in the target country. Also, the U.S. company 
     frequently is required to conduct free transfer of technology 
     to achieve the required local content. Liquidated damages can 
     be assessed if the local content requirements are not 
     fulfilled.


   Examples of Specific ``Local Content'' and other requirements of 
selected foreign Governments, including mou signatories with the United 
                                 States

       Australia: The Australian Industry Involvement office 
     within the Department of Defense coordinates the offset 
     policies. Guidelines are contained in the Defense Australian 
     Industry Involvement Program, published in July 1995. Actual 
     requirements are program specific. For example, the Ocean 
     Patrol Combatant Project suggests that the local content be 
     65%. Liquidated damages assessment for unfilled local content 
     requirements also vary with the contract. For the Australian 
     Ocean Patrol Combatant project, the liquidated damages 
     assessment is 20%. Another example is the Australian ANZAC 
     Frigate project in which U.S.-based Bird-Johnson Company is 
     participating. Bird-Johnson is required to manufacture its 
     ship propeller system with at least 80% local Australian 
     content.
       Canada: The Director of Industrial Benefits Policy, 
     Industry Canada agency, is the coordinator of offset 
     authority. The Canadian term for offset is Industrial Benefit 
     (IB). IB Managers are assigned to individual projects. It is 
     normal for major programs to have at least 100% Canadian 
     content requirement. Liquidated damage assessments are 10% of 
     the unfulfilled amount of the IB commitment.
       The Netherlands: The Coordinator of Offset Authority is the 
     Commissioner for Military Production and Crisis Management 
     within the Ministry of Economic Affairs with input from 
     advisors for the Navy, Air Force, or Army. 100% offset is 
     required. Offset valuation credits vary, but in general, 85% 
     or more local content would result in an 100% offset credit.
       Norway: The Coordinator of Offset Authority is the Royal 
     Norwegian Ministry of Defense, assisted by the Director 
     General of the Section for Industrial Cooperation. For 
     contracts over $7 million, 100% offset is required, with 80% 
     or more local content equal to 100% offset credit. A 10% 
     penalty is assessed on any unfulfilled offset amount.
       Sweden: At least 50% of the total value of a Swedish 
     defense procurement with an offshore company must be in local 
     content. The offshore bidder must sign a Draft Contract for 
     Industrial Cooperation with the Swedish Defense Material 
     Administration (FMV) detailing how the bidder will meet the 
     binding industrial cooperation (I.C.) commitment. The 
     commitment constitutes ``a vital part of the decision 
     process'' concerning the acceptability of the bid. I.C. is 
     ``valued on the basis of the production of goods and services 
     that is achieved in Sweden.'' Both the ``economical volume'' 
     and the ``qualitative contents'' of the bidder's commitment 
     are considered. I.C. credits, which must be ``accepted by the 
     Swedish industry concerned,'' are evaluated and monitored by 
     the FMV, in consultation with Swedish industry.
       United Kingdom: The U.K. Ministry of Defense (MOD) 
     Procurement Executive DESO is charged with providing 
     Government support to increase UK defense business. When 
     offshore defense companies seek to compete, the MOD-DESO 
     assesses the U.K. Industrial Participation (IP) proposal of 
     an offshore defense company seeking to compare. Although IP 
     proposals are not mandatory, in reality, the IP is a key 
     element in whether or not the offshore company gets the MOD 
     contract. 100% offsets are encouraged. The IP obligation must 
     be met at no extra cost to MOD. The DESO negotiates a Letter 
     or Agreement on the IP proposal which is not legally binding, 
     but is considered a ``Gentlemen's Agreement.''

  Mr. SIMON. Again, what I am suggesting in this amendment is that when 
a contractor submits a bid, that contractor has to say what percentage 
of the work will be done in the United States and it be a matter of 
high importance, not the only consideration, but a matter of high 
importance for the Defense Department. We do not suggest and we make 
clear that it would be waived for countries where we have agreements or 
memoranda of understanding.
  So I think it makes sense. I hope that the motion to table will be 
rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I shall make a motion to table this 
amendment at 1 p.m.. I now ask that it be set aside temporarily so that 
I might deal with some other matters here, if that meets with the 
approval of the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                       Photonics Research Report

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, last year, during the consideration of the 
fiscal year 1996 defense appropriations measure, the Congress approved 
the Center for Photonics Research at Boston University. I am pleased to 
share with my colleague an interim report that was just submitted by 
the president of Boston University, advising us of the progress being 
made in this technology.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

[[Page S7943]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Boston University,

                                        Boston, MA, July 10, 1996.
     Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Inouye: It was a pleasure to meet with you to 
     discuss the Center for Photonics Research at Boston 
     University, and to have an opportunity to thank you in person 
     for your support and leadership in the Congress. I also want 
     to thank you again for your very generous offer to be of 
     assistance if possible in the future, and to help put the 
     Center on the road to self-sufficiency.
       Boston University has invested over $60 million of its own 
     funding to create and establish the Center, and we are 
     committed to its long-term mission and success. Photonics 
     technology will, as you have observed, be one of the keys to 
     our nation's ability to defend itself from external threats; 
     it will also become a driving force in all sectors of our 
     economy. It is truly the technology of the future.
       Few, if any, of our current weapons, weapon systems or 
     platforms do not depend on photonics for their effectiveness. 
     It was not by coincidence that photonics was declared as one 
     of our most critical technologies needed for the future in 
     the Critical Technologies Report to the Congress.
       Research alone cannot meet the defense needs of our 
     country. We must develop the ability to move from the 
     research to the actual product and product-manufacturing 
     requirements of our country. Meeting these requirements is 
     central to the mission of the Center. The funding your 
     Committee made available has allowed us to move the Center 
     forward, and the actual construction is moving forward on 
     budget and on schedule.
       The Center for Photonics Research is already actively 
     contributing to the nation's defense. To illustrate this, I 
     enclose a brief report, prepared by Dr. Donald Fraser, the 
     Center's Director, which summarizes the defense-related 
     applications that are now under development.
       The Center's building will be completed and ready for 
     formal dedication next spring. We very much hope that you the 
     Members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee will be 
     able to join us at that event.
       Again, thank the Subcommittee on behalf of Jon Westling and 
     all of Boston University for its leadership and vision. I can 
     only imagine the number and variety of difficult choices it 
     faces every day, but I know how much I admire the service of 
     you and your fellow Subcommittee members and what it has 
     meant to the American people.
       With warm personal regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Silber.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 4666

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment I offer 
on behalf of Senator Cochran and Senator Lott. If I may first just 
explain it, this entitles the Secretary of Navy to lease to the State 
of Mississippi 5 acres of the property located at the naval air station 
at Meridian, MS, for use only by the State to construct a reserve 
center of approximately 22,000 square feet and ancillary supporting 
facilities. This will be for the co-use of the State and Federal 
Government, as I understand it. It does provide for the renting of this 
facility by the United States, once it is contracted by the State, at a 
rate not to exceed $200,000 a year.
  We have examined this lease-back concept of the reserve center and 
believe it is in the interests of the taxpayers of the United States to 
proceed in this fashion because it will mean we will have the facility 
and have it at an annual lease cost which is a substantial advantage to 
the Government.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for Mr. Cochran, for 
     himself and Mr. Lott, proposes an amendment numbered 4666.

  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:
       At the end of the bill, insert:

     SEC.   . LEASE TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF RESERVE CENTER, 
                   NAVAL AIR STATION, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI.

       (a) Lease of Property for Construction of Reserve Center.--
     (1) The Secretary of the Navy may lease, without 
     reimbursement, to the State of Mississippi (in this section 
     referred to as the ``State''), approximately five acres of 
     real property located at Naval Air Station, Meridian, 
     Mississippi, only for use by the State to construct a reserve 
     center of approximately 22,000 square feet and ancillary 
     supporting facilities.
       (2) The term of the lease under this subsection shall 
     expire on the same date that the lease authorized by 
     subsection (b) expires.
       (b) Leaseback of Reserve Center.--(1) The Secretary may 
     lease from the State the property and improvements 
     constructed pursuant to subsection (a) for a five-year 
     period. The term of the lease shall begin on the date on 
     which the improvements are available for occupancy, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Rental payments under the lease under paragraph (1) may 
     not exceed $200,000 per year, and the total amount of the 
     rental payments for the entire period may not exceed 20 
     percent of the total cost of constructing the reserve center 
     and ancillary supporting facilities.
       (3) Subject to the availability of appropriations for this 
     purpose, the Secretary may use funds appropriated pursuant to 
     an authorization of appropriations for the operation and 
     maintenance of the Naval Reserve to make rental payments 
     required under this subsection.
       (c) Effect of Termination of Leases.--At the end of the 
     lease term under subsection (b), the State shall convey, 
     without reimbursement, to the United States all right, title, 
     and interest of the State in the reserve center and ancillary 
     supporting facilities subject to the lease.
       (d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the leases under this section as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared and 
approved by both managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 4666 is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4666) 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 am going to suggest the absence of a 
quorum as we go through our files to see if there are any other 
amendments we can go through in the manner we have thus far. I 
congratulate the Chair and clerk for assisting us in this manner. 
Again, I will announce the vote on the motion to table the Simon 
amendment will take place at 1 p.m.
  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.
  The Senator from Alaska.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have now, since we started on this 
bill, whether Senators realize it or not, disposed of almost 50 
amendments. In the process of doing that, under the circumstances, 
again having to deal with the cloture problem, we filed the amendments 
so they only hit the bill at one point. We have been able to 
consolidate those. As we consolidated them, we may have made some 
technical errors. I ask unanimous consent that the staff and the clerk 
be authorize to make technical, clerical changes in numbers, et cetera, 
that might be required.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the unanimous-consent agreement we 
have concerning these technical changes to our amendments apply to all 
amendments we accept by unanimous consent today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4528

    (Purpose: To require certification of competition prior to the 
                 appropriation of funds for the T-39N)

  Mr. STEVENS. Now I ask the Chair lay before the Senate amendment No. 
4528.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mrs. Frahm, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4528.

  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, insert the following:
       Sec.  .None of the funds provided for the purchase of the 
     T-39N may be obligated until the Under Secretary of Defense 
     for Acquisition certifies to the defense committees that

[[Page S7944]]

     the contract was awarded on the basis of and following a full 
     and open competition consistent with current federal 
     acquisition statutes.

  Mrs. FRAHM. Mr. President, my amendment is quite simple. It requires 
the Secretary of Defense for acquisition to certify to the Congress 
that he has conducted a full and open competition, consistent with 
current acquisition policies prior to awarding any contract for 
purchasing the T-39N or its replacement. This amendment reflects the 
stated position of the Navy, the Department of Defense, and it reflects 
good government.
  The Navy is currently using a 1950's technology aircraft to train our 
pilots. This aircraft is expensive to fly and maintain, thus wasting 
precious defense resources. Further, the T-39N does not provide the 
kind of state-of-the-art training or pilots need and deserve. I believe 
that the Navy, our pilots, and the Nation can be better served with a 
more modern and cost-effective aircraft for this purpose.
  With that said, I believe that the Navy should be left to make their 
own choice and that their choice be based upon a full and open 
competition. It is through the competitive process that we can best 
meet the needs of our future pilots. And it is through competition that 
the taxpayer will be best served.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to address the issues raised by 
Senator Frahm's amendment. I must first note that the T-39N aircraft 
currently in use by the U.S. Navy has been performing its duties for 
over 5 years and it will perform the same duties in the future. This is 
not a new program nor a new aircraft. I also understand the concern of 
some that the aircraft may be too old, however Navy analysis indicates 
this aircraft will provide valuable service through 2025. The 
Sabreliner T-39N has a mission completion rate of 98 percent. The U.S. 
Air Force in fact has consolidated its tactical navigator and weapon 
sensor operator training under the Navy umbrella with the understanding 
that the T-39N would be the trainer aircraft. Our allies who conduct 
the same type of training have also elected to use the U.S. Navy's T-39 
Flight Officer Training Program.
  Future concerns of system upgrades would be the same regardless of 
the aircraft flown and any other modernization upgrades would also be 
figured into any new aircraft purchase.
  So, how does the T-39N stack up to the Navy's mission requirements?
  First, the men and women who fly it, love it. The aircraft possesses 
the speed and range they desire and the swept wing design makes it much 
more adaptable to the harsh conditions of low level flight required in 
their training. Straight wing aircraft experience a much rougher ride 
at low level and may have lower mission completion rates.
  In terms of flight characteristics the T-39N has been and is closest 
to the rise and performance of the jets the Navy, U.S. Air Force, and 
allied Air Force personnel will find in their inventories. I would also 
point out that this aircraft has had years of ``fly before you buy'' 
experience without complaint.
  The aircraft has performed superbly as opposed to other aircraft used 
in the program in the past. As I noted before, this aircraft is 
currently in use as we speak, turning out the finest tactical flight 
officers in the world. These men and women will be going to the same 
aircraft they have been going to since the current contract began over 
5 years ago.
  There are no new design aircraft on the drawing boards which require 
a new airframe; any avionics systems upgrades or radar upgrades can be 
accommodated by the T-39N. This is the right aircraft, at the right 
time, and for the right cost.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is to require certification of 
competition prior to appropriation of funds for the T-39N. We have 
discussed this matter with the Senator from Kansas and are prepared to 
recommend to the Senate we adopt this amendment. We will consider it in 
conference. There are similar provisions--the matter is discussed in 
the House bill, and it will be a controversy in conference.
  Mr. INOUYE. There is no objection, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4528) 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. 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.


        Repair and Maintenance of Cargo and Personnel Parachutes

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it would be helpful if I can discuss, for 
the Record, with the distinguished chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, a matter of importance concerning the 
readiness of the Airborne units of my State.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will be delighted to discuss this matter with my 
colleague from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the able Senator. At the outset, let me state I am 
proud that my State is home to several important military installations 
and thousands of fine members of the Armed Forces of our Nation. North 
Carolinians are especially proud that the U.S. Army's XVIII Airborne 
Corps and the 82d Airborne Division call Ft. Bragg home. These men and 
women are the front line of our Nation's defense and they are among the 
best trained, most dedicated and professional soldiers in the world.
  When there is a need for equipment or technology to make these 
soldiers' tasks easier or safer, it is the responsibility of the 
Congress to provide for it. The modification of the Army's T-10R 
reserve parachute is an example of one such initiative. A study showed 
that a modified design would increase effectiveness to almost 100 
percent. This modification was developed by the Army through a 
partnership between the Army and a private company. As a result of this 
successful partnership, Airborne troops now have a highly effective, 
low cost parachute that should help save lives.
  I ask the able Senator from Alaska if my understanding is correct 
that there is a backlog in the performance of repair and maintenance 
work on cargo and personnel parachutes. To alleviate this backlog and 
thereby enhance readiness, would it be a wise use of Army resources to 
contract out the repair and maintenance of these chutes to a qualified 
manufacturer of similar parachutes? Would this not allow the backlog to 
be addressed in a cost-efficient manner?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from North Carolina is correct. In the 
current fiscal environment, it is important that each service seek 
innovative, cost-saving ways to provide support for our men and women 
in uniform. The Army Airborne has experienced an increase in training 
requirements. While the T-10R reserve parachute modification work has 
been successful, the Army is required to repack the parachutes after 
the modifications are performed and, as a result, the repair and 
maintenance of personnel and cargo parachutes has fallen behind. 
Therefore, I agree that repair and maintenance work, as well as cargo 
parachute repacking, would be excellent candidates for contracting out.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the distinguished Senator. I think it is obvious 
that my goal is to make certain that the Army has the ability to use 
the operations and maintenance funds appropriated within this bill to 
contract for parachute repair and maintenance work, as well as the 
cargo repacking efforts. Can the Senator give me that assurance?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, nothing in this bill will prevent the Army from 
using funds in the operations and maintenance account. These funds are 
not earmarked because the committee frowns upon earmarking this 
account. However, I will bring this issue to my House colleagues during 
conference to gain their support for this initiative.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the distinguished chairman for his support. I 
will, of course, work with him as he

[[Page S7945]]

considers this issue with Members of the House.


                              Raid Funding

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to bring to your attention 
two items in this bill that relate to the Reconnaissance and 
Interdiction Detachment, RAID, funding that fall within the budget of 
the Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities of the Department of 
Defense, DOD.
  Vermont, as a border State, is in a very strategic position in the 
country's efforts to combat drugs. Since 1991 the Vermont State Police 
have been successfully working with the Army National Guard for the 
interdiction and eradication during the comparatively short but very 
productive marijuana growing season. The efforts of the Vermont Army 
National Guard have contributed to the eradication of approximately 70-
80 percent of all confiscated marijuana reported by the Vermont State 
Police.
  Thanks to the cooperation of my colleague from Alaska, this bill will 
help Vermont's law enforcement community continue its successful 
counterdrug and interdiction efforts. I appreciate the Senator's 
concurrence with me and other Senators who believe the National Guard 
has made important and valuable contributions to the Nation's 
counterdrug efforts. Mr. President, this issue has bipartisan support. 
Both sides recognize the National Guard's efforts to interdict and 
eradicate illegal drugs deserve sufficient funding and have wisely 
indicated this in their bill. Language in the committee report states 
that the DOD should ensure the RAID program is fully funded and 
supported.
  More specific to Vermont's needs, the committee included my request 
for $500,000 to assist in the implementation of a more focused RAID 
program. These funds will directly benefit Vermont's RAID program by 
making available two OH-58 helicopters, as well as the necessary 
personnel and infra-red equipment to carry out the mission. I greatly 
appreciate the chairman's cooperation and accommodation of my request. 
I also understand his feeling that the allocation of these funds should 
be postponed until the present National Guard Review of the State 
Governors' programs is completed. As it appears the review is very 
close to completion, there should be little delay once the 
appropriations bill is enacted.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that my colleague from Alaska has joined 
me in a discussion of this important matter on the floor of the Senate, 
and I commend him for including these important items in the bill 
before us.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I was very pleased to accommodate my 
colleague's request on RAID. I agree with my colleague from Vermont on 
the importance of providing adequate funding for the National Guard 
Governors' State Counterdrug Plans and will keep his request in mind 
when the House and Senate go to conference on the Defense 
Appropriations bill.


                           Amendment No. 4591

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now move to table the amendment of the 
Senator from Illinois, the pending amendment, and state, again, that 
the Senator from Hawaii and I have opposed this amendment at the 
request of the Department of Defense, the defense industrial base and 
on our own behalf based on our analysis of this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The question is on agreeing to 
the motion to lay on the table the Simon amendment No. 4591. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--29

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Jeffords
     Johnston
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4591) 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4852

     (Purpose: To improve the National Security Education Program)

  Mr. SIMON. 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 Illinois [Mr. Simon] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4852.

  Mr. SIMON. 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) Repeal of Temporary Requirement Relating to 
     Employment.--Title VII of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-61; 109 Stat. 650), 
     is amended under the heading ``National Security Education 
     Trust Fund'' by striking out the proviso.
       (b) General Program Requirements.--Subsection (a)(1) of 
     section 802 of the David L. Boren National Security Education 
     Act of 1991 (title VIII of Public Law 102-183; 50 U.S.C. 
     1902) is amended--
       (1) by striking out subparagraph (A) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following new subparagraph (A):
       ``(A) awarding scholarships to undergraduate students who--
       ``(i) are United States citizens in order to enable such 
     students to study, for at least one academic semester or 
     equivalent term, in foreign countries that are critical 
     countries (as determined under section 803(d)(4)(A) of this 
     title) in those languages and study areas where deficiencies 
     exist (as identified in the assessments undertaken pursuant 
     to section 806(d) of this title); and
       ``(ii) pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(A) of this section, 
     enter into an agreement to work for, and make their language 
     skills available to, an agency or office of the Federal 
     Government or work in the field of higher education in the 
     area of study for which the scholarship was awarded;''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in clause (i), by inserting ``relating to the national 
     security interests of the United States'' after 
     ``international fields''; and
       (B) in clause (ii)--
       (i) by striking out ``subsection (b)(2)'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``subsection (b)(2)(B)''; and
       (ii) by striking out ``work for an agency or office of the 
     Federal Government or in'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``work for, and make their language skills available to, an 
     agency or office of the Federal Government or work in''.
       (c) Service Agreement.--Subsection (b) of that section is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking out 
     ``, or of scholarships'' and all that follows through ``12 
     months or more,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``or any 
     scholarship''.
       (2) by striking out paragraph (2) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following new paragraph (2):
       ``(2) will--
       ``(A) not later than eight years after such recipient's 
     completion of the study for which scholarship assistance was 
     provided under the program, and in accordance with 
     regulations issued by the Secretary--

[[Page S7946]]

       ``(i) work in an agency or office of the Federal Government 
     having national security responsibilities (as determined by 
     the Secretary in consultation with the National Security 
     Education Board) and make available such recipient's foreign 
     language skills to an agency or office of the Federal 
     Government approved by the Secretary (in consultation with 
     the Board), upon the request of the agency or office, for a 
     period specified by the Secretary, which period shall be no 
     longer than the period for which scholarship assistance was 
     provided; or
       ``(ii) if the recipient demonstrates to the Secretary (in 
     accordance with such regulations) that no position in an 
     agency or office of the Federal Government having national 
     security responsibilities is available, work in the field of 
     higher education in a discipline relating to the foreign 
     country, foreign language, area study, or international field 
     of study for which the scholarship was awarded, for a period 
     specified by the Secretary, which period shall be determined 
     in accordance with clause (i); or
       ``(B) upon completion of such recipient's education under 
     the program, and in accordance with such regulations--
       ``(i) work in an agency or office of the Federal Government 
     having national security responsibilities (as so determined) 
     and make available such recipient's foreign language skills 
     to an agency or office of the Federal Government approved by 
     the Secretary (in consultation with the Board), upon the 
     request of the agency or office, for a period specified by 
     the Secretary, which period shall be not less than one and 
     not more than three times the period for which the fellowship 
     assistance was provided; or
       ``(ii) if the recipient demonstrates to the Secretary (in 
     accordance with such regulations) that no position in an 
     agency or office of the Federal Government having national 
     security responsibilities is available upon the completion of 
     the degree, work in the field of higher education in a 
     discipline relating to the foreign country, foreign language, 
     area study, or international field of study for which the 
     fellowship was awarded, for a period specified by the 
     Secretary, which period shall be established in accordance 
     with clause (i); and''.
       (d) Evaluation of Progress in Language Skills.--Such 
     section 802 is further amended by--
       (1) redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection (c):
       ``(c) Evaluation of Progress in Language Skills.--The 
     Secretary shall, through the National Security Education 
     Program office, administer a test of the foreign language 
     skills of each recipient of a scholarship or fellowship under 
     this title before the commencement of the study or education 
     for which the scholarship or fellowship is awarded and after 
     the completion of such study or education. The purpose of the 
     tests is to evaluate the progress made by recipients of 
     scholarships and fellowships in developing foreign language 
     skills as a result of assistance under this title.''.
       (e) Functions of the National Security Education Board.--
     Section 803(d) of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1903(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, including an order 
     of priority in such awards that favors individuals expressing 
     an interest in national security issues or pursuing a career 
     in an agency or office of the Federal Government having 
     national security responsibilities'' before the period;
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     out ``Make recommendations'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``After taking into account the annual analyses of trends in 
     language, international, and area studies under section 
     806(b)(1), make recommendations'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and countries which 
     are of importance to the national security interests of the 
     United States'' after ``are studying''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``relating to the 
     national security interests of the United States'' after ``of 
     this title'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7); and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(5) Encourage applications for fellowships under this 
     title from graduate students having an educational background 
     in disciplines relating to science or technology.
       ``(6) Provide the Secretary on an on-going basis with a 
     list of scholarship recipients and fellowship recipients who 
     are available to work for, or make their language skills 
     available to, an agency or office of the Federal Government 
     having national security responsibilities.''.
       (f) Report on Program.--(1) Not later than six months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to Congress a report assessing the 
     improvements to the program established under the David L. 
     Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (title VIII of 
     Public Law 102-183; 50 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) that result from 
     the amendments made by this section.
       (2) The report shall also include an assessment of the 
     contribution of the program, as so improved, in meeting the 
     national security objectives of the United States.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this corrects an error made in the National 
Security Education Program legislation and is supported by the Defense 
Department. It is agreed to on both sides.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, both managers approve of the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment clarifies the eligibility 
for security education funds, as I understand it, and it has been 
modified to meet our request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4852) was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMON. 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. 4568

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Moseley-Braun and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Ms. Moseley-
     Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 4568.

  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:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Any college or university that receives federal funding 
     under this bill must report annually to the Office of 
     Management and Budget on the average cost of tuition at their 
     school for that year and the previous two years.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It says, ``Any 
college or university that receives Federal funding under this bill 
must report annually to the Office of Management and Budget * * *''
  This matter has been cleared by both sides.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have cleared that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4568) 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in 
our office, Craig Williams, be granted the privilege of the floor 
during the discussion of S. 1894.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4440

 (Purpose: To require an audit and report of security measures at all 
    United States military installations outside the United States)

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Ms. 
     Moseley-Braun, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, Mr. Coats, Mr. 
     Inhofe, Mr. Kerrey of Nebraska, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Smith, Mr. 
     Helms, Mr. D'Amato, and Mr. Coverdell, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4440.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 Secretary of Defense and the Secretary 
     of State shall jointly conduct an audit of security measures 
     at all United States military installations outside the 
     United States to determine the adequacy of such measures to 
     prevent or limit the effects of terrorist attacks on United 
     States military personnel.
       (b) Not later than March 31, 1997, the Secretary of Defense 
     and the Secretary of State shall jointly submit to Congress a 
     report on

[[Page S7947]]

     the results of the audit conducted under subsection (a), 
     including a description of the adequacy of--
       (1) physical and operational security measures;
       (2) access and perimeter control;
       (3) communications security;
       (4) crisis planning in the event of a terrorist attack, 
     including evacuation and medical planning;
       (5) special security considerations at nonpermanent 
     facilities;
       (6) potential solutions to inadequate security, where 
     identified; and
       (7) cooperative security measures with host nations.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as 
cosponsors to the bill Senators Moseley-Braun, Murkowski, Warner, 
Coats, Inhofe, Kerrey of Nebraska, Lugar, Smith, Helms, D'Amato and 
Coverdell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am going to have a total of four 
amendments. I believe that three of them will be acceptable to the 
managers of the bill. The fourth one, I understand, will require a 
vote. On the fourth one, I would be more than happy to enter into a 
time agreement of 20 minutes on each side. When I get to it, perhaps we 
can get the managers' agreement at that time.
  Mr. President, just over 2 weeks ago, 19 young men and women of the 
U.S. military were killed in a brutal terrorist attack on a housing 
complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. There is nothing we can do to bring 
these men and women back to life, but it is our responsibility to make 
every effort to ensure this tragedy does not occur again.
  Today, I am introducing an amendment that requires the Secretary of 
Defense and Secretary of State to jointly conduct an audit of security 
at all U.S. military installations overseas. Currently there are eight 
cosponsors including Senators Moseley-Braun, Murkowski, Warner, Coats, 
Inhofe, Kerrey of Nebraska, Lugar, and Smith.
  Specifically, the audit will focus on the adequacy of security 
measures currently in place to prevent or limit the effects of 
terrorist attacks on U.S. military personnel. The Secretaries would be 
required to report to Congress an assessment of the adequacy of 
existing security measures at our permanent bases overseas, including 
both physical and operational security measures, and any recommended 
remedial action where necessary.
  The report would also provide information regarding cooperative 
security measures with host nations. Finally, the report would provide 
an assessment of the special security considerations at temporary 
basing locations, like the Khobar Towers complex, and possible 
solutions to these unique problems.
  In these times of peace in this post-cold-war world, the No. 1 threat 
to our servicemembers, in addition to the normal hazards and risks 
associated with the job, is terrorism. This is the most difficult 
threat to predict, as well as prevent.
  Prior to the tragedy of June 25, measures to protect our forces from 
terrorist attacks were clearly inadequate. The President waged war 
against terrorism by means of a summit meeting in a resort town in 
Egypt where there were 240 minutes of opening statements, 40 minutes of 
discussion, and a photo opportunity.
  The summit produced a lot of symbolism, but little in the way of 
concrete recommendations to combat terrorism. Syria--identified by the 
State Department as one of the world's leading sponsors of terrorism--
did not attend the meeting. The participants couldn't even agree to 
specifically condemn Iran for aiding and abetting terrorist groups. The 
only result of the summit was a lofty joint statement by President 
Clinton and Egyptian President Mubarek, condemning terrorism and 
promising future cooperation and consultation on ways to halt these 
terrorist attacks.
  And, now, little more than 3 months after the summit in Egypt, and 
after another couple of international get-togethers to talk tough on 
terrorism, 19 more Americans have been killed by a terrorist bomb.
  Now is the time to act. We must stop all of this talking and act on 
what we say we must accomplish. This amendment is designed to protect 
our troops who continue to make the sacrifices on a daily basis. I 
believe this measure deserves our careful and full review, and I hope 
that you will all support me on this very important issue.
  Just today I received a letter from the Military Coalition offering 
strong support for this amendment. They stated:

       Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines deserve the best 
     we can provide and it is our continuing responsibility to 
     provide for their safety and well being. This legislation 
     remains consistent with that objective.

  As I stated previously, it is our responsibility to provide for our 
men and women stationed across the globe. It is our responsibility 
because we, the Congress, are accountable to not just those men and 
women serving in the military, but to their families and the American 
people.
  Mr. President, the pending amendment, No. 4440, is a requirement that 
the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State jointly conduct an 
audit of security measures at all U.S. military installations overseas. 
It requires a report to Congress on March 31, 1997.
  The specific requirements of the audit include adequacy of physical 
and operational security measures; access and perimeter control; crisis 
planning in the event of a terrorist attack, including evacuation and 
medical planning; special security considerations at nonpermanent 
facilities; potential solutions to inadequate security, where 
identified; and cooperative security measures with host nations.
  Mr. President, there is no sense in rehashing the tragic events that 
took place 2 weeks ago on June 25. The terrorist attack in Dhahran in 
Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 brave young Americans, is well known to 
all of us. But it is important for us to, again, reaffirm our 
responsibility to ensure that we have made every effort to prevent this 
tragedy from occurring again.
  Mr. President, this amendment calls for the audit of security 
measures at all U.S. military installations overseas. I am aware that 
the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State have made efforts 
in this direction.
  I believe Congress needs to be more involved in knowing the results 
of those audits, and, very frankly, the American people need to know it 
as well.
  Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a letter from the Military Coalition supporting this 
amendment.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       The Military Coalition,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 10, 1996.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The Military Coalition, a consortium 
     of military and veteran organizations representing more than 
     five million current and former members of the uniformed 
     services, supports your efforts to ensure the safety of our 
     military men and women serving overseas. Providing the best 
     possible security and assuring those measures are never 
     compromised should be, and always remain, a top priority.
       The recent terrorist attack in Dhahran that claimed the 
     lives of 19 American service members emphasizes the need for 
     Congress and the Department of Defense to address the 
     adequacy of protective measures afforded our troops serving 
     outside the country. Questions raised about the security of 
     U.S. foreign military installations further indicates the 
     need to audit and assess current safety and security 
     standards practiced at U.S. overseas facilities.
       The Military Coalition is pleased to offer its strong 
     support for your legislative initiative to protect American 
     service members. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 
     deserve the best we can provide and it is our continuing 
     responsibility to provide for their safety and well being. 
     This legislation remains consistent with that objective.
           Sincerely,
     The Military Coalition:
       Air Force Association.
       Assn. of Military Surgeons of the United States.
       Commissioned Officers Assn. of the U.S. Public Health 
     Service, Inc.
       CWO & WO Assn. U.S. Coast Guard.
       Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United 
     States.
       Fleet Reserve Assn.
       Jewish War Veterans of the USA.
       Marine Corps League.
       Marine Corps Reserve Officers Assn.
       National Military Family Assn.
       National Order of Battlefield Commissions.
       Naval Enlisted Reserve Assn.
       Navy League of the United States.
       Reserve Officers Assn.
       The Military Chaplains Assn. of the USA.
       The Retired Enlisted Assn.
       The Retired Officers Assn.
       USCG Chief Petty Officers Assn.
       U.S. Army Warrant Officers Assn.

[[Page S7948]]

       Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as I stated previously, it is our 
responsibility to provide for the men and women stationed overseas the 
maximum amount of security that we can provide. We ask them to embark 
on very difficult and sometimes dangerous missions, and obviously our 
obligation to them in return for that service and sacrifice is that we 
provide them with the maximum amount of security possible.
  Again, Mr. President, I do not think it is either necessary or 
particularly appropriate at this time for me to go through the entire 
tragedy that took place a few weeks ago. Suffice it to say, this and 
the next amendment I will be proposing are very modest steps in trying 
to ensure the goal that all of us seek, and that is that there never is 
repetition of such a tragedy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we concur in this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4440) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. 4444, as Modified

 (Purpose: To provide $14,000,000 for anti-terrorism activities of the 
                         Department of Defense)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4444 and send a 
modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN], for himself and Mr. 
     Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 4444, as modified.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 34, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

                   Anti-Terrorism Activities, Defense


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For anti-terrorism activities of the Department of Defense, 
     $14,000,000, subject to authorization for transfer to 
     appropriations available to the Department of Defense for 
     operation and maintenance, for procurement, and for research, 
     development, test, and evaluation: Provided, That the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available for 
     obligation for the same period and for the same purposes as 
     the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That the transfer authority provided under this heading is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority contained in this 
     Act.
       On page 88, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 8099. Beginning with fiscal year 1997, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall establish a program element for the Office 
     of the Secretary of Defense for the purpose of funding 
     emergency anti-terrorism activities. Funds available for that 
     program element for fiscal year 1997 shall be in addition to 
     funds appropriated under other provisions of this Act for 
     anti-terrorism and are available for the Secretary of Defense 
     to respond quickly to emergency anti-terrorism requirements 
     that are identified by commanders of the unified combatant 
     commands or commanders of joint task forces in response to a 
     change in terrorist threat level.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is a natural follow-on to 
the previous amendment. It provides $14 million to the Department of 
Defense specifically for antiterrorism measures.
  Mr. President, the threat of terrorism to Americans living overseas 
has never been greater. In particular, our men and women serving in the 
armed forces are at great risk as they are targeted by various 
terrorist organizations and activities. This continues to be a reality 
our troops must face when we send them to lands far away from our great 
Nation. This was never more evident than the brutal attack in Dhahran, 
Saudi Arabia just over 2 weeks ago when 19 young men and women were 
tragically killed when a truck loaded with explosives detonated within 
100 feet of their housing complex.
  Today I am introducing an amendment that will provide $14 million in 
additional funding to the Department of Defense for antiterrorism 
measures. These funds will be specifically used for intelligence 
support, physical security measures, education, training, and any other 
additional measures the Secretary of Defense determines are necessary.
  A report recently conducted by the Department of Defense noted that 
antiterrorism funding is not specifically identified in many instances 
since it is a part of a larger effort, primarily in physical security 
programs. There was an 82-percent--$8.7 million--reduction in Air Force 
funding, 55 percent--$43.4 million--in Army funding, and 62 percent--
$4.5 million--in Navy funding.
  On Tuesday, the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff appeared before the SASC and testified in both open and closed 
sessions that the Department of Defense lacked sufficient funds for 
antiterrorism measures as a result of poor decisions by this 
administration to cut funds in this area. During this hearing Secretary 
Perry confirmed, ``I think that was a bad cut. I have directed the 
services to increase the funding in antiterrorism.'' Additionally, 
General Shalikashvili stated,

       The antiterrorism study identified two issues pertaining to 
     funding of antiterrorism things. One, that the services 
     increased their funding and secondly, . . . that we create a 
     program line under the Secretary of Defense with which he can 
     fund high priority antiterrorism programs that need to be 
     funded.

  As a result of this review, the Secretary has recommended the 
establishment of a separate OSD program of $7-$14 million annually as a 
contingency account to be available for antiterrorism requirements. 
These funds would be used to ensure adequate funding for intelligence 
support, physical security measures, education, training, and any other 
additional measures the Secretary determines are necessary.
  Mr. President, if we cannot afford to provide adequate protection for 
our men and women serving overseas, then we should not put them in 
those areas with high threats of terrorism. We must give them every 
means available to prevent, protect, and defend against terrorist 
attacks. It is our responsibility.
  This amendment is designed to provide additional funds for the 
Department of Defense to protect our troops. I believe this measure 
deserves our careful and full review, and I hope that you will all 
support me on this very important issue.
  I note the presence of Senator Levin, who is an original cosponsor of 
this amendment, in the Chamber.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the McCain 
amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of this amendment, and I 
want to just ask my friend from Arizona as to the modification. I have 
not had a chance to review it. Is this modification that was sent to 
the desk the language which I had suggested to him might be an 
improvement in terms of the nature of the funds and how the funds would 
operate? I have not had a chance to review the language which was 
actually sent to the desk. Is this the language which I spoke to his 
staff about?
  Mr. McCAIN. It is.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I very much support this amendment. We are 
too often fighting in our appropriations and the add-ons to the 
appropriations the battles of the cold war instead of the future 
battles which we are all going to face in the area of terrorism. Many 
of us had an opportunity to meet with the Secretary of Defense and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs this morning, and the efforts which are 
being made in the fight against terrorism, particularly in the Middle 
East, were outlined in some detail to us. It is also becoming more and 
more clear that too much of our defense dollar is being spent on 
refighting battles which are no longer looming before us and on buying 
equipment and investing in equipment which is no longer as relevant as 
it once was, adding on things which may or may not have been useful 5 
years ago but which are not now as much needed as are new weapons in 
the war against terrorism, which is going to be a growing battle. The 
new cold war is the war against terrorism.

[[Page S7949]]

  There was a request of the Secretary of Defense for an analysis of 
how many dollars are being invested in the war against terrorism, and 
we got a letter back addressed to Senator Nunn from the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense, Sandra Stuart, outlining some of the 
antiterrorist activities. I want to just quote two paragraphs from that 
letter dated July 16, and then I will ask unanimous consent that the 
entire letter be printed in the Record.
  The first paragraph I want to quote is the following:

       Anti-terrorism activities deal with traditional defensive 
     measures such as barriers, fences, detection devices and 
     Defense personnel who have as part of their mission 
     protecting DOD personnel and facilities against the threat of 
     terrorism. The Defense Department spends nearly $2 billion 
     annually on such anti-terrorism activity overall. 
     Traditionally we have not budgeted anti-terrorism activities 
     in a single program because force protection is part of each 
     individual commander's responsibility and is therefore 
     budgeted by every installation in, for example, their 
     operation and maintenance accounts.

  The second paragraph from this letter that I will quote is the 
following:

       In the area of counter-terrorism, DOD has many programs and 
     activities which are more often associated with proactive 
     activities undertaken to neutralize the terrorist threat or 
     respond to terrorist acts. All combatant forces in Defense 
     potentially have as part of their mission a counter-
     terrorism function; however, these activities are more 
     commonly associated with special operations forces, which 
     have annual budgets in excess of $3 billion. That amount 
     is in addition to the considerable sum spent from our 
     intelligence portion of the budget to counter terrorism.

  Mr. President, the letter does point out something which our 
amendment is aimed at correcting, and that is that a report which has 
been given some notice faulted DOD procedures relative to the funding 
of unanticipated contingencies. And the Secretary has directed 
corrective action in this area, according to Assistant Secretary of 
Defense Stuart.
  So I commend the Senator from Arizona for the amendment, which I 
cosponsored, because it does address this question of a fund for 
unanticipated contingencies which I think we have to focus on more and 
more. We can spend the $3 billion which is referred to in terms of 
counterterrorism efforts and the $2 billion annually which is referred 
to on antiterrorism activities which are described, but we still have a 
need for funding unanticipated contingencies in the fight against 
terrorism.
  This amendment is just a beginning in terms of funding that kind of a 
fund for unanticipated contingencies in the fight against terrorism. I 
am happy to cosponsor this amendment. While it is just a small 
beginning in that unanticipated contingencies effort, I hope we will be 
able to supplement it later. But it is an important step, and I commend 
the Senator from Arizona. I am happy to cosponsor that amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the entire letter I referred 
to be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Office of the Assistant


                                         Secretary of Defense,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 1996.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Ranking member, Senate Committee on Armed Services, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nunn: The Secretary is looking forward to 
     having breakfast with you and your colleagues to discuss the 
     tragic terrorist bombing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and also 
     to have an opportunity to talk about the broader issue of 
     terrorism and the consequences in the Persian Gulf. Force 
     protection is the number one priority of Secretary Perry and 
     General Shalikashvili. This is a responsibility that they 
     take very seriously and is central to every deployment 
     decision they approve.
       Prior to the breakfast, I wanted to mention a few issues 
     which have been reported in the press and which we feel need 
     some clarification.
       As you know, shortly after the bombing, Secretary Perry 
     appointed retired General Wayne Downing to conduct a thorough 
     investigation of the security situation in Dhahran, Riyadh 
     and the balance of the U.S. Central Command facilities in the 
     AOR. General Downing's charter empowers him to make findings 
     and conclusions about pertinent acts or omissions on the part 
     of individuals. In the event General Downing makes such 
     findings and conclusions, they will be transmitted to the 
     cognizant supervising officials for action. General Downing 
     has assembled a qualified team who have already begun this 
     review and will depart for Dhahran to continue his 
     investigation by mid-week.
       The Secretary has further directed General Downing to 
     assess immediately the situation regarding moving the 
     perimeter fence. There has been a good bit of speculation as 
     to who spoke with the Saudis about moving this fence, what 
     their reply was and whether this information was passed up 
     the chain of command. Once General Downing reports his 
     findings to Secretary Perry, we will inform you of the 
     details.
       There are two other matters which we believe need to be 
     clarified.
       The first involves the June 17 DIA Military Intelligence 
     Digest (MID) that has been referred to in the press as an 
     ``alert''. The MID is a daily publication that covers a wide 
     array of topics of interest to policy makers, force planners, 
     and operational forces. Additionally, the MID is delivered, 
     also daily, to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House 
     National Security Committee, and the two Intelligence 
     committees. While the MID is a classified document, there are 
     several points that can be made for the record concerning 
     this particular article.
       Contrary to press reporting, the MID article on June 17 was 
     not an ``alert''. Rather it was a compilation of previously 
     reported security incidents that had occurred in the Khobar 
     Towers area over the past several months. The value of this 
     particular article was that it provided intelligence 
     confirmation that security had been increased outside the 
     complex and that the threat was taken seriously.
       There was no warning in the article of an impending 
     terrorist incident. When such warnings exist, they are 
     provided to Defense decision makers immediately and directly, 
     rather than through a publication like the MID which goes 
     through an extensive editorial review and follows a days-long 
     publication timeline. The article did recommend that, due to 
     the incidents that had occurred over the past several months, 
     security should be further increased and, indeed, 
     approximately 130 distinct security enhancements were being 
     implemented at Khobar Towers.
       The second remaining issue deals with the level of funding 
     within the Pentagon budget for anti-terrorism activities. 
     Unfortunately, there is a misperception about the amount of 
     money the Department spends. This misperception resulted from 
     a review of one document, a JCS report which dealt with only 
     a fraction of the total DoD funding which supports anti-
     terrorist activities. A portion of the report described some 
     program funding reductions, which resulted from personnel 
     reductions, domestic base closings, completed construction 
     projects or program completions, but those items were just a 
     minor portion of the overall DoD expenditures on anti-
     terrorism. There are two categories normally associated with 
     Defense activities to combat terrorism: anti-terrorism and 
     counter-terrorism.
       Anti-terrorism activities deal with traditional defensive 
     measures such as barriers, fences, detection devices and 
     Defense personnel who have as part of their mission 
     protecting DoD personnel and facilities against the threat of 
     terrorism. The Defense Department spends nearly $2 billion 
     annually on such anti-terrorism activity overall. 
     Traditionally we have not budgeted anti-terrorism activities 
     in a single program because force protection is part of each 
     individual commander's responsibility and is therefore 
     budgeted by every installation in, for example, their 
     operation and maintenance accounts.
       In the area of counter-terrorism, DoD has many programs and 
     activities which are more often associated with proactive 
     activities undertaken to neutralize the terrorist threat or 
     respond to terrorist acts. All combatant forces in Defense 
     potentially have as part of their mission a counter-terrorism 
     function; however, these activities are more commonly 
     associated with special operations forces, which have annual 
     budgets in excess of $3 billion. That amount is in addition 
     to the considerable sums spent from our intelligence portion 
     of the budget to counter terrorism.
       The JCS report was commissioned by Secretary Perry and CJCS 
     Shalikashvili following the Riyadh bombing. Its purpose was 
     to identify and assess all of the anti-terrorism programs, 
     actions and preparedness of the DoD and possible areas for 
     additional action. The report did fault DoD procedures for 
     funding unanticipated contingencies, and the Secretary 
     directed corrective action in this area. It is unfortunate 
     that a minuscule portion of the JCS review is now being used 
     to draw wider, and inappropriate, conclusions in light of the 
     Dhahran bombing.
       I hope this information is helpful. Secretary Perry looks 
     forward to seeing you soon and discussing the issues of Saudi 
     Arabia and terrorism in the Persian Gulf area.
           Sincerely,

                                             Sandra K. Stuart,

                                    Assistant Secretary of Defense
                                            (Legislative Affairs).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4444), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S7950]]

                           Amendment No. 4441

  (Purpose: To require the submittal to Congress of the future-years 
defense programs prepared by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and 
                 the chiefs of the reserve components)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 4441 to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent Senator 
Grams of Minnesota be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Grams, proposes an amendment numbered 4441.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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. Section 221 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) The President shall submit to Congress each year, at 
     the same time the President submits to Congress the budget 
     for that year under section 1105(a) of title 31, the future-
     years defense program (including associated annexes) that the 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the chiefs of the 
     reserve components submitted to the Secretary of Defense in 
     that year in order to assist the Secretary in preparing the 
     future-years defense program in that year under subsection 
     (a).''.
       Effective Date. This section shall take effect beginning 
     with the President's budget submission for fiscal year 1999.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would require the President 
to submit, with his annual budget request, the future years defense 
plans of the National Guard and Reserve components. The Chiefs would 
prepare their long-range spending plans, which would then be forward to 
the Congress.
  For years, the Congress has added billions of dollars to the defense 
budget for equipment and building projects for the Guard and Reserve 
components. These add-ons are usually based on the assertion that the 
Department of Defense does not provide sufficient resources for the 
Guard and Reserve in its annual budget requests and long-term funding 
plans, and that is an assertion that I cannot dispute.
  The problem, however, is the Congress does not now have the necessary 
information to properly prioritize among the requests of individual 
Members of Congress for added funding for the Guard and Reserve units 
in their States and districts. As a result, we have earmarked billions 
of dollars for construction projects and procurement items based on 
their location, not their priority and utility to the missions of the 
Guard and Reserve.
  A few weeks ago, the Senate passed a military construction 
appropriations bill containing $700 million for unrequested projects, 
the majority of which were for guard and reserve projects. The bill 
before the Senate today contains $759.8 million for unrequested 
equipment for the Guard and Reserve. For the most part, the allocation 
of this funding to meet the requirements of the Guard and Reserve is 
left to the appropriate officials in those organizations.
  Again this year, I applaud Senators Stevens and Inouye for resisting 
the temptation to earmark these funds, unlike the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and the House defense committees. I wish they had also left 
out the earmark for six additional C130-J aircraft, but, unfortunately, 
this bit of perennial pork is in the bill.
  Mr. President, a few weeks ago I met with the Chief of the Guard 
Bureau, representatives of the Reserve components and officials from 
the Department of Defense responsible for oversight of the Guard and 
Reserve. In this meeting, we discussed the need to provide adequate 
funding for the Guard and Reserve components. We discussed the 
perception that the Department of Defense does not include sufficient 
funds in its budget requests for the Guard and Reserve, relying instead 
on the Congress to add these funds each year.
  Unfortunately, we do not come up with a clear way of dealing with 
this problem, leaving the Congress in a catch-22 situation. If we 
support a strong national defense which requires the Guard and Reserve 
be appropriately equipped and trained for their assigned missions, we 
have to add money for the Guard and Reserve.
  Mr. President, I reiterate: The problem is that over the years, the 
Department of Defense is shortchanging the Guard and Reserve in their 
budget request because they know--they know--the Congress will add on 
the funding necessary to adequately equip the Guard and Reserve in 
their military construction projects. So we are in a terrible situation 
where everybody knows. It is kind of a dirty little secret. The 
Department of Defense knows we will add the money, so they do not 
request the money. And, therefore, the Guard gets the money.
  Mr. President, that is not any way to run a railroad, much less a 
defense appropriations process.

  This amendment would address this problem with respect to the 
Congress by ensuring we have full information on the long-range plans 
of the Guard and Reserve components. Basically, we are saying the Guard 
and Reserve need a future years defense plan just as the active duty 
forces will as well. In this way, as we evaluate the Department's 
budget request for the Guard and Reserve, we will also have before us 
information on the long-term requirements of the Guard and Reserve.
  Mr. President, I think this amendment will serve the best interests 
of the Guard and Reserve in two ways. First, the Department of Defense, 
knowing that the Congress will have full access to long-range 
requirements of the Guard and Reserve, will perhaps feel compelled to 
better accommodate these requirements in the Department's annual budget 
request. Second, if Guard and Reserve programs are still underfunded, 
the Congress will be better informed in making allocations of any 
additional funds for equipment and construction projects.
  I believe this amendment is a positive step forward. I believe it 
will reduce some of the add-ons that, frankly, have more to do with 
location and geography as opposed to national security needs. I believe 
this will give us a much better blueprint to make the very difficult 
decisions as to how we spend the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars which 
are earmarked for defense.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The Senator from 
Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as I understand the amendment, it will 
require the President to submit to Congress the request of the Chiefs 
of the National Guard Bureau and respective Reserve components which 
was submitted to the Secretary of Defense that year, in order to assist 
the Secretary in preparing the defense program.
  I might say to the Senator from Arizona, there is not a similar 
provision with regard to the Marines or the Air Force or the Army or 
the Navy. They all submit requests, really, to the President through 
the Secretary of Defense.
  I do believe that the Senator from Arizona is right about his 
assertion that the Congress does respond to the requests of the 
National Guard Bureau and the Reserve components in a unique way. I do 
believe they are closer to the people and they are closer to the 
Members of Congress because, when we all go home we see our Reserve 
components, we see the members of our National Guard, and they tell us 
what they have asked of the National Guard Bureau. When we come back, 
we inquire what is in the budget. We find it is not there, so we seek 
it. He has a point there. But the same point might be valid as to the 
requests that the Chief of Naval Operations made to the Secretary, or 
to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force or the Army.
  I do not argue with the Senator about his proposition. I am prepared 
to take the amendment to conference and see what the will of the House 
will be in that regard. I think we will probably work out something 
that will require an annex to the report, to have all of the requests 
of the various Chiefs be provided to Congress.
  Let us explore that, if the Senator will, but I am happy to recommend 
we take it to the conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the effort on the part of the Senator from 
Alaska to help solve this dilemma. I believe it is a dilemma, as I 
stated before. The Department of Defense--and I must

[[Page S7951]]

place great responsibility on them--know full well Congress is going to 
add this money on. So, therefore, they will request funding for, 
perhaps, less popular and certainly programs with less constituent 
support, knowing full well the Congress is going to add on additional 
money. That is what I am trying to do. The Senator from Alaska 
obviously appreciates what I am trying to get at.
  Basically what I am asking for, in some respects, is a future years 
defense plan for the Guard and Reserve to try to identify and 
prioritize their requirements.
  If there is a way I can work with the Senator from Alaska and the 
other conferees and the Senator from Hawaii in trying to achieve this 
goal--I am not saying this amendment is the best way, but I think it is 
an issue that must be addressed, and I believe the amendment addresses 
it.
  I, again, appreciate the understanding of the dilemma on the part of 
the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the McCain 
amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend my friend from Arizona for this 
amendment. This is a subject which has been discussed at some length in 
the Armed Services Committee. He has consistently fought for and has 
been on the side of trying to identify what the priorities of the Guard 
and Reserve are so that we could at least consider those priorities 
when it comes time to identifying the items in the authorization bill. 
As a matter of fact, he was very forthright in his support of that 
position on the authorization bill.
  We did adopt an amendment which I offered, I believe, on the 
authorization bill a few weeks ago. The question I would like to ask of 
the Senator from Arizona is this: Is the approach in this amendment 
either similar to or, at a minimum, consistent with the requirement 
that we added to the authorization bill on the floor, that the Guard 
and the Reserve components identify, prior to submission of the budget, 
what their priorities are so that they could be considered by the 
Congress when the time comes, if we add money to identify what those 
items are?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Michigan, indeed, 
I believe this amendment is complementary to the amendment--a very 
thoughtful and important amendment--that the Senator from Michigan 
added to the defense authorization bill.
  I also express my appreciation to the Senator from Michigan who has 
also fought against this earmarking of funds. Again, I would like to 
point out, the Appropriations Committee has simply added the money and 
they have not earmarked those funds, which I think is a significant 
improvement over what the authorizing committee has been doing. But in 
response to the question from my friend from Michigan, I believe this 
is a complementary amendment to that which the Senator from Michigan 
had added to the authorization bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think it would be useful, assuming this 
amendment is adopted, for the appropriators to harmonize this language 
with the language that is in the authorization bill, to make sure we 
have precisely the same requirement, whatever it ends up being, 
assuming that it remains in the two bills following conference.
  I also want to commend the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens 
and Senator Inouye, for following the generic approach on this Guard 
and Reserve issue. They have taken the correct position in terms of 
giving the Guard and Reserve components the greatest flexibility to do 
what is most needed by those components, rather than just some add-ons 
by Members of the Congress.
  This is an important issue. It has been raised with great frequency 
on this floor. The Senate has generally taken the approach that we are 
going to give them the greatest flexibility rather than doing the 
earmarking.

  I hope we prevail both in conference on the authorizing bill and on 
the appropriations bill. I join my friend from Arizona in thanking the 
Appropriations Committee for taking the position that they have and for 
accepting this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Michigan that our 
flexibility in this bill is hampered by the earmarking in the 
authorization bill. I am not sure that we will survive conference so 
long as the authorization bill insists on pinning down the limited 
amount of money. It will lead to demands from both the House and Senate 
appropriators to challenge that.
  I agree with the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Michigan, 
Mr. President, but we have to have it in both committees in order to 
succeed. I do urge acceptance of the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Alaska will yield on that point, I do 
happen to agree with him in terms of his comment on the authorizing 
committee. Some of us made an effort in committee to totally eliminate 
those earmarks. We failed by, I think, one vote in committee. We ended 
with a sort of hybrid: some of the money earmarked and some not.
  I agree, the fact some of it is earmarked in the Senate authorization 
bill does make your work more difficult in conference. I happen to 
regret that because I am on the generic side of this debate, but it is 
a fact of life.
  Mr. STEVENS. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4441, the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona.
  The amendment (No. 4441) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on the next amendment, I understand the 
Senator from Arizona would like a time agreement. Will he state that 
again, please?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am more than happy to agree to any time agreement. I 
suggest 20 minutes equally divided on the amendment, if that is 
agreeable to the Senator from Alaska, or any other time agreement that 
he chooses to enter into.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am pleased to enter into that agreement. That means 
this amendment will be voted on at quarter after 2.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The vote 
will be taken at quarter after 2.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4442

    (Purpose: To limit the use of funds for programs, projects, and 
    activities not included in the most recent future-years defense 
                                program)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4442.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act 
     may be obligated or expended for any program, project, or 
     activity which is not included in the future-years defense 
     program of the Department of Defense for fiscal years 1997 
     through 2002 submitted to Congress in 1996 under section 221 
     of title 10, United States Code, unless the Secretary of 
     Defense certifies to Congress that--
       (1) the program, project, or activity fulfills an existing, 
     validated military requirement;
       (2) the program, project, or activity is of a higher 
     priority than any other program, project, or activity 
     included in that future-years defense program for which no 
     funds are appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act; and
       (3) if additional funds will be required for the program, 
     project, or activity in future fiscal years, such funds will 
     be included in the future-years defense program to be 
     submitted to Congress under such section in 1997.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we amend the 
unanimous consent agreement to include that it not be subject to an 
amendment in the second degree.

[[Page S7952]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment would require an assessment 
by the Department of Defense programs included in the appropriations 
bill which are not in the administration's future years defense plan. 
The Secretary of Defense would be required to certify that the program 
fulfills a military requirement, that it is a higher priority than any 
other unfunded program in the future years defense plan, and any future 
funding requirement associated with the program will be included in 
next year's future years defense plan. Until the assessment is complete 
and the certification provided to Congress, no funds for these programs 
could be obligated or expended.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a time agreement 
of 20 minutes equally divided, if that has not already been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is needed. The amendment 
would impose some degree of restraint on the Congress' seemingly 
unlimited desire to waste scarce defense resources on unnecessary 
projects.
  This Congress has succeeded in increasing the President's inadequate 
defense budget requests of the last 2 years, adding a total of $18 
billion. I fully supported these increases which have slowed, although 
not halted, the too-rapid decline in the defense budget over the past 
decade. Failure to provide adequate funding for defense will seriously 
hinder the ability of our military services to ensure our future 
security and have a deleterious effect on our Nation's ability to 
influence world events and maintain peace.
  However, much of this additional $18 billion is devoted to 
unnecessary and unwarranted projects. Last year, the Congress wasted $4 
billion of the defense budget on unnecessary projects. These included 
$700 million for unrequested, low-priority military construction 
projects, $1.2 billion for B-2 bombers and Seawolf submarines, another 
$2.2 billion for unrequested projects of special interest, such as 
earmarks for specific universities, centers, or other entities; 
nondefense activities, such as Coast Guard operations, support to the 
Atlanta Olympics, medical research education and programs; and 
unrequested Guard and Reserve equipment.
  Mr. President, that adds up to $4.1 billion, which did little or 
nothing to enhance the readiness of our forces today or to modernize 
our forces. This year, while it appears the Senate may be exercising 
restraint, I have identified only $2 billion in this year's as opposed 
to last year's budget.
  I know this is sometimes an unpleasant experience, but I have to 
identify some of these projects that honestly have no relation to 
defense spending. There is nonauthorized add-ons and earmarks--I am not 
going to go through all of them:
  A $3.4 million add-on for ``Med teams'';
  A $14 million add-on for Akamai program, to continue telemedicine 
efforts at Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii;
  Earmarks $2.7 million for development of ``dual-mode hyperspectral/
fluorescence imaging technology'';
  The sum of $8 million for the mitigation of environmental impacts on 
Indian lands;
  A $477,000 grant to Kansas Unified School District 207 to integrate 
schools at Fort Leavenworth into post-fiber-optic network;
  There is $100 million for prostate cancer research; $93 million of 
that is earmarked in the bill. The report specifies a total of $100 
million for research to be conducted in conjunction with the Center for 
Prostate Disease Research.
  There is a $2 million add-on for the National Automotive Center; a 
$5.4 million add-on for Hawaii Small Business Development Center; a $4 
million add-on for Instrumented Factory for gears; $900,000 earmarked 
for National Center for Physical Acoustics for research on ocean 
acoustics for purchase of special equipment; $7 million add-on for 
Center of Excellence for Research in Ocean Sciences in Oregon.
  There is an $8 million add-on to support Pacific Disaster Center; a 
$3 million add-on for Southern Observatory for Astronomical Research; 
$4.75 million earmarked for Charleston Navy Hospital for a cancer 
control program conducted in conjunction with a State-owned cancer 
center serving coastal South Carolina.
  There is a $350,000 add-on for a DOD-State-local government joint 
task force studying wastewater treatment, management, and disposal; $10 
million earmarked for joint Army-Tennessee Valley Authority project to 
``develop, demonstrate, and validate a plasma energy pyrolysis system * 
* * to render hazardous, chemical, and medical waste into an inert 
glass slag byproduct.''
  There is $1 million for brown tree snake control; again, a $2 million 
add-on for natural gas boiler demonstration; $2.5 million add-on for 
carbon reinforced recycled thermoplastic engineered lumber; $7 million 
earmarked for evaluation of a multithread architecture experimental 
computer; a $26.8 million add-on to initiate program using DOD 
satellite capabilities in support of civil needs, such as detecting 
forest fires and volcanic activity; a $20 million add-on for Electric 
and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Consortia program.
  There is a $25 million add-on for Optoelectronics consortia. By the 
way, only $20 million was authorized. There is a $13 million add-on for 
oceanographic partnership programs.
  Mr. President, I know that the argument can be and will be made that 
each of those programs I talked about are worthy and important 
programs. Most of those that I identified have little, if anything, to 
do with national defense. They were not requested by the Department of 
Defense, nor in many cases were they authorized in the authorizing 
bill.
  I think this amendment is a necessary starting point for curbing this 
kind of spending. It is aimed only at projects that are not included in 
the spending plans of the military services until after the year 2002.
  Perhaps my colleagues are unaware of what a future years defense plan 
is. It is the plan the Department of Defense documents which specifies 
the programs, projects, and activities that are planned for a 6-year 
period. The current FYDP was submitted to Congress earlier this year 
and covers fiscal years 1997 through 2002. The services' highest 
priority programs are included in that document.
  Mr. President, I point out that the total funding for defense in the 
current future years defense program is $1.5 trillion--$1.5 trillion--
which means there are lots and lots and lots of projects in there. Lots 
of those projects are not funded in the decisions made by the Congress 
of the United States.
  Mr. President, I understand the opposition to this amendment and have 
very few illusions as to its chance of passage, but I feel that it is 
my obligation to seek its passage.
  I also ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that a letter from the 
Citizens Against Government Waste in support of this amendment be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              Council For Citizens


                                     Against Government Waste,

                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 1996.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the 600,000 members of 
     the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I 
     am writing to endorse your amendment to the FY 1997 
     Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations bill (S. 1894). 
     Your amendment prohibits the use of funds for projects not 
     included in the DOD's Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) 
     unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that those programs 
     are a higher priority than the unfunded FYDP items and will 
     be included in the following year's FYDP. S. 1894 contains 
     over $2 billion worth of items not included in FYDP.
       As you know, DOD submits a FYDP every year which specifies 
     programs, projects, and activities that are planned for a 
     six-year period. Only items of the highest priority are 
     included by DOD. The current FYDP was submitted this year and 
     covers FYs 1997 through 2002. This FYDP contains $1.5 
     trillion worth of spending items, many of which were ignored 
     by Congress and replaced with wasteful items.
       Some of the items included in S. 1894 have been listed in 
     our Congressional Pig Book:
       $1 million for Brown Tree Snake control.
       $15 million for High Frequency Active Auroral Research 
     Program (HAARP). While it was authorized, it is an 
     objectionable add-on.

[[Page S7953]]

       $4 million add-on for the instrumented factory for gears. 
     In FY 1996,this program received a $5 million add-on in 
     conference.
       Wasteful spending crowds out valuable resources for high 
     priority projects. Your amendment would help stop pork-barrel 
     spending hidden under the cloak of defense spending. We urge 
     your colleagues to support this amendment, which will be 
     considered for inclusion in CCAGW's 1996 Congressional 
     Ratings.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas A. Schatz,
                                                        President.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, unfortunately, this is one amendment that 
we have to disagree with the Senator from Arizona on in regard to his 
proposal. It would prohibit the obligation of any congressionally 
approved funds, by definition, funds approved by the President, too, 
unless those funds were in the President's original plan.
  The budget resolution that we have adopted in the Congress is $27.5 
billion more than the President's plan. That is the 5-year plan. I 
stood here listening to the Senator from Arizona, and I was remembering 
battles that this Senator has been involved in. Three times other 
committees zeroed out the C-17, and the President did not request it. 
Our committee insisted on it. Our committee insisted on upgrading the 
Patriot missile when it had not been requested, was not in anyone's 
authorization bill. We believed it should have been upgraded. It had a 
significant role, I think, in the Persian Gulf war.
  On the V-22, the Osprey, it was never recommended by the President or 
by the Secretary of Defense. We had met with the Marines, and they gave 
us their concept of a new order of battle, really, if they could have 
this new system. And our subcommittee again battled. I remember the 
battles here on the floor with some of my former friends about our 
adding money to the bill that was not authorized or requested. Today 
the V-22 is the signal part of our defense effort. I think this will be 
one of the few items of new technology, really innovative technology, 
in the overall field of aviation. I predict that within 20 years, it 
will be a significant part of commuter airline transportation 
throughout the world.
  I do not disagree with the Senator from Arizona that we do at times 
agree to money that has not been requested that could be considered in 
a subsequent year. But I do not believe we should abandon the total 
flexibility that Congress has. Congress has the authority to initiate 
spending in areas where it feels it is necessary to meet the national 
defense requirements, our national security requirements. Our 
obligation is to provide for the common defense under the Constitution. 
I keep repeating that here on the floor.
  I must oppose the Senator's amendment because we would have no 
flexibility whatsoever. Under the current budget resolution, we have 
programmed even this year $266.362 billion for defense. The President 
asked for $255.1 billion for defense. Over the period of 5 years, as I 
said, we asked for $27.5 billion more than the President.
  Senator McCain's amendment would say, even if we provided it, the 
Secretary of Defense would uniquely have impoundment authority, the 
authority to prioritize spending. In our opinion, it is not the right 
thing to do. So at the appropriate time, I will make a motion to table 
the amendment.
  This language, as I understand it, would require that the Secretary 
of Defense, after Congress has passed an act and the President has 
signed it, that the Secretary of Defense must certify that the program 
meets valid military requirements. The Osprey stands out in my mind, 
Mr. President. No Secretary of Defense that I knew ever supported the 
Osprey, V-22. I do not wish to give the Secretary of Defense a veto 
power that I would not give to the President of the United States.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 33 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
request for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand how this vote would come out. 
I will be satisfied with a voice vote on it. I want to assure the 
Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii that I am very 
appreciative of their very hard work and efforts. I am very 
appreciative of the fact that we have gone from $4 billion to $2 
billion of, in my view, unnecessary and unwarranted and unauthorized 
spending.
  However, Mr. President, I do not intend to quit in trying to stop 
add-ons such as those that I described before. I believe that the 
American people deserve to have a thorough ventilation and thorough 
hearing of the requirements and the appropriations that are included in 
this bill. I do, as I said before, appreciate the reductions in 
unauthorized earmarks and spending, and I think we will continue to 
make progress. At the same time, I have to bring to the attention of my 
colleagues areas that I feel are absolutely unnecessary and wasteful 
projects.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, of course, I commend my colleague from 
Arizona for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate. Every 
Member of this body is desirous of providing the finest defense at the 
least cost.
  There are a few things that we should remind ourselves. First is the 
Constitution of the United States. Mr. President, it is not the 
President who is responsible to declare war, to raise and support 
armies, to provide and maintain a Navy, to make rules for the 
Government on regulations of land and naval forces. That is the power 
of the Congress of the United States. We, the Members of the Congress, 
were not elected by our constituents to serve as rubber stamps of the 
Secretary of Defense or, for that matter, of the President of the 
United States.
  As my distinguished colleague from Alaska pointed out, if it were not 
for the initiative taken by this committee, the C-17 would not be in 
existence, the V-22 would be a thing of the past, the Patriot upgrade 
would not have helped our troops in Desert Storm.
  For that matter, I think we should recall, in early 1990, when the 
seas were calm and the Middle East seemed to be a tranquil place, the 
Pentagon was considering doing away with the central command. That is 
fact, Mr. President. They were about to break up the central command 
and retire General Schwarzkopf. When this subcommittee heard about 
that, we called upon the Secretary of Defense to delay that decision 
for at least a year because we, on this subcommittee, felt the seas 
were not tranquil in the Middle East, that the air was not calm in the 
Middle East, that something was brewing, and within 8 months, we were 
shooting and they were shooting at us. If we had served as rubberstamps 
for the President of the United States and the Department of Defense, 
General Schwarzkopf would now be retired and Desert Storm would have 
been a disaster.
  The weapon that most people credit with the great successes of Desert 
Storm is the F-117, the stealth fighter, the fighter that was able, in 
a stealthy fashion, to knock out all of the radar positions of the 
Iraqis. I believe we should recall that the administration did not want 
any more F-117's. For that matter, our companion committees in the 
Congress of the United States did not favor the F-117. Thank God for 
this subcommittee; we got the F-117.
  Mr. President, I think we should always remind ourselves that the 
Congress shall have the power to raise armies, to support armies, to 
provide and maintain a Navy, to provide for calling forth the militia 
to execute the law of the Union against suppressions and insurrections, 
and to repel invasions. We are the people who are responsible for the 
Defense Department. We are the people who are responsible to declare 
war.
  Mr. President, we take our responsibilities very seriously. We will 
do our very best to help our Senator from Arizona to bring down the 
costs of defense. This is not the way to do it, sir.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4442) is rejected.

[[Page S7954]]

  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 4582, as Modified

(Purpose: To provide funds for preparing the application for renewal of 
          the use of the McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, Texas)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of 
amendment No. 4582.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Gramm, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4582, as modified.

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

       At the end of the bill add the following:
       Sec.   . Of the funds appropriated in title II of this Act, 
     not less than $7.1 million is available to perform the 
     environmental impact statement and associated baseline 
     studies necessary to prepare an application for renewal of 
     use of the McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, Texas.

  Mr. STEVENS. As amended, this makes funds available for a project in 
Texas which the Senator from Texas wishes to be certain is authorized 
and the moneys are available for.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to advise the Senate that the 
managers have approved this measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4582), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4883

    (Purpose: To provide $7,5000,000 to fund 1.5 ship years in the 
   university research fleet under the Oceanographic and Atmospheric 
                          Technology program)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have an amendment, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4883.

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

       On page 29, line 20, strike out ``Forces.'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``Forces: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph, $7,500,000 shall be available 
     for 1.5 ship years in the university research fleet under the 
     Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology program.''.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this has to do with the military 
oceanographic research survey administered by the Dept. of the Navy. I 
understand it has been cleared by both of the distinguished managers. I 
want to tell them how much I appreciate their cooperation in this 
respect.
  Mr. President: today I am offering an amendment which will increase 
funding for the Navy's military oceanographic research survey 
capabilities. With enhanced survey capabilities, university research 
fleets will be able to help the Navy in the important work of 
oceanographic research.
  This amendment will reduce an approximately 240 ship-year backlog in 
military oceanographic survey vessels which are operated by the 
Oceanographer of the Navy. It allows the Navy to use non-military 
research ships as a supplement to its own fleet.
  Most of the Navy's surveys are overseas; some are in American waters. 
Clearly, the Navy Oceanographer's eight ships cannot, by themselves, do 
all the work for 240 ship-years of backlog. They need help. The 
University Oceanographic Laboratory System [UNOLS], an umbrella 
organization of oceanographic research ships, can provide that help. 
These research ships are owned and operated by a variety of agencies 
and private organizations, including the University of Washington in 
Seattle. With the additional funds provided by this amendment, the Navy 
can enlist the aid of UNOLS in reducing its backlog.
  This initiative will bring military and civilian oceanographers, 
together, in a spirit of partnership, for exchanges of ideas and 
capabilities. I thank the committee for agreeing to this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Washington has identified that 
immediate attention be paid to this activity. We support his position 
that it should be maintained at the current level, and urge adoption.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the managers are pleased to support this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4883) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sharon 
Dunbar be permitted privileges of the floor during consideration of 
this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4884

    (Purpose: To provide $12,000,000 for the Pulse Doppler Upgrade 
              modification to the AN/SPS-48E radar system)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Senator Feinstein 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 4884.

  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 20, strike out ``Forces.'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``Forces: Provided further, That of the funds 
     available under this paragraph, $12,000,000 is available for 
     the Pulse Doppler Upgrade modification to the AN/SPS-48E 
     radar system.''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my 
amendment to authorize $12 million for the development of a pulse 
doppler upgrade to the AN/SPS-48E radar system.
  The AN/SPS-48E is currently the only surveillance radar capable of 
detecting low flying cruise missiles coming out of the severe ground 
clutter that is typical of littoral warfare over water or land. Given 
the proper funding, the Navy agrees that the AN/SPS-48E pulse doppler 
upgrade would re-initiate clutter reduction engineering activities, 
thereby improving their ability to meet current and emerging threats. 
Present lack of funding for this one-of-a-kind, superior radar system 
leaves our large deck amphibious ships and the new LPD-17 class ships 
and their crews unprotected and vulnerable to attack.
  I am pleased that this amendment is acceptable and I thank the 
managers of the bill.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by both 
sides. We are pleased to support it.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I concur in adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4884) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7955]]

   air battle captain program at the center for aerospace sciences, 
                       university of north dakota

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I see that my esteemed colleague, Senator 
Inouye, the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 
is on the floor. I wonder if the Senator from Hawaii would be willing 
to engage in a colloquy with my friend from North Dakota and me over a 
matter of importance to our State and the U.S. Army.
  Mr. INOUYE. I would be happy to do so.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. As my friend from Hawaii may recall, 
the internationally recognized Center for Aerospace Sciences [CAS] at 
the University of North Dakota [UND] has been conducting intensive 
helicopter flight training for U.S. Army Reserve Officer Training Corps 
[ROTC] scholarship recipients for the past decade and a half. The 1995-
96 school year was the last year of a 5-year test program designed to 
produce 15 second lieutenants every year for the Army Aviation branch 
who are ready for tactical aircraft training and further assignment as 
combat-ready aviators upon graduation from UND. Because of the unique 
flight training students receive at CAS, the entire UND class has 
almost always received active duty helicopter assignments upon 
graduation.
  Mr. INOUYE. Yes, I am aware of this program. Has this training been 
cost-effective for the Army?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes, it has. In fact, it costs approximately 40 percent 
less to train helicopter pilots at UND than at the Army's usual 
facility at Fort Rucker.
  Mr. DORGAN. If my senior colleague from North Dakota would yield for 
a moment, I would also like to note that the recent proposal for 
program continuation forwarded to the commanding general at Fort Rucker 
suggests that we will save even more than that. My friend from Hawaii 
and all Senators should also be aware that the Army has consistently 
praised UND graduates for their excellent performance and superior 
airmanship. The CAS program is unique in the United States, and 
consequently its aviator graduates in the Air Battle Captain Program 
are better trained than any other ROTC graduates seeking Army aviation 
assignments. Appropriately, the entire UND Air Battle Captain class has 
consistently received active duty helicopter assignments upon 
graduation.
  Mr. INOUYE. Considering both the cost savings and the excellent 
performance of UND's graduates, this program appears to be an excellent 
buy.
  Mr. DORGAN. It is, and consequently I and my colleague from North 
Dakota were very surprised to learn that only 2 of this year's class of 
15 graduates were assigned to active duty aviation. Clearly, many 
programs within the Armed Services are undergoing reorganization as 
part of the defense-wide effort to cut costs, but to reject the 
graduates from the aviation program at UND Aerospace does not make any 
sense to me. After all, these young officers have been handpicked and 
well trained. To reject these young men and women after this special 
training seems wasteful.
  Mr. INOUYE. I understand the concern of my friends from North Dakota. 
From what I have heard today, rejecting these fine young men and women 
for the positions for which their country has trained them does not 
appear to make much sense.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is also our thinking, and Senator Dorgan and I, with 
our friend from the other body, Congressman Earl Pomeroy, wrote to the 
Secretary of Defense on May 31, asking that the assignments given to 
this year's graduates be reexamined. We are hopeful that it is not too 
late for the members of class of 1996 to receive the assignments they 
had every right to expect when they enrolled in the program over 3 year 
ago. Every member of this year's ABC class made time-consuming, costly 
commitments to this excellent program. In addition, the funds spent by 
the Army over the past 3 years on their training is in danger of going 
to waste if current orders are not reviewed. All 15 students are 
uniquely qualified to be Army helicopter pilots, and we believe it is 
only right to give these young people the opportunity to serve their 
country in this capacity, especially now that significant tax dollars 
have been invested in their training.
  It is our hope that any procedural error which may have hindered 
UND's graduates during this year's selection process can be corrected 
for this year's class. We are also concerned, however, about future 
classes. We hope that UND students will be able to benefit from this 
excellent program for many years to come.
  Mr. INOUYE. Has the Defense Department responded to your letter or 
taken action in light of your very understandable concern?
  Mr. CONRAD. Unfortunately, we have not yet received a substantive 
response.
  Mr. INOUYE. In light of the stress that this delay must be inflicting 
on this year's graduates, I would hope that the Defense Department 
would expedite action in this matter. I look forward to a favorable 
response to the letter my friends from North Dakota have sent to 
Secretary Perry, and would hope that Senators Conrad and Dorgan would 
not hesitate to let me know if I can be of assistance.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank my esteemed colleague from Hawaii. We will be 
sure to do so.
  Mr. CONRAD. I also thank the distinguished ranking member for his 
time and support. I thank the Chair, and yield the floor.


                              last center

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to bring to your attention 
an item in this bill which is listed under the heading of Industrial 
Preparedness, namely the Lithographic and Alternative Semiconductor 
Processing Techniques [LAST] Center. This Center will play a major role 
in the development of a critical technology for our national defense. 
As you know, our national defense is heavily dependent on the 
electronics industry, in which there are certain critical tools and 
technologies. Of these, lithography is pivotal to our Nation's 
continued success. This is the technology used to create the ever-
shrinking patterns found on integrated circuit chips and is an area 
where we face fierce international competition. The United States must 
retain leadership in this dual-use technology area through the 
continued investments by government, industry, universities, and 
industrial associations.
  Since 1988, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA] has 
been working with the Naval Air Systems Command and the Naval Research 
Laboratory to develop alternative lithographic technologies. Proximity 
x-ray lithography is considered to be the primary backup to the optical 
lithography technologies currently used, and to have the most promise 
for manufacturing future generations of chips. Yet by fiscal year 1998, 
DARPA plans to curtail the bulk of its funding in proximity x-ray 
technology.
  This technology is at the delicate point where DARPA believes it is 
too mature to meet its development investment profile, yet the 
industrial infrastructure is not yet sufficient to sustain it. 
Therefore, DOD investment is needed to continue development of x-ray 
lithography and other mask technologies and to demonstrate how 
semiconductor processes can be used in leading edge military 
applications. This work more clearly fits the needs of the services 
than the mission of DARPA.
  The bill the Senate is considering today begins a smooth transition 
of the results of DARPA's Advanced Lithography Program in proximity x-
ray lithography to the Navy in fiscal year 1997. It establishes a 
Manufacturing Technology Program Center of Excellence, which would be 
based at the IBM research facility in Essex Junction, VT.
  The bill provides for the extension of efforts begun in the DARPA 
Advanced Lithography Program through transition to the Lithographic and 
Alternative Semiconductor Processing Techniques [LAST] Center and funds 
the Center at $15 million in fiscal year 1997, from the manufacturing 
technology budget, PE78011N. It increases the request in that line by 
$15 million. This increase is in addition to any other planned 
increases.
  The Naval Air Systems Command should manage this Center since it 
currently is the agent for most of the DARPA contracts in this 
technology area. As the LAST Center's programs are part of a larger 
ongoing government, university, industry effort to

[[Page S7956]]

nurture advanced lithography, both the Center's program and DARPA's X-
ray Proximity Printing Program must be viewed as an ongoing effort. A 
coordinating effort for the LAST Program should be established and the 
Navy should chair a coordinating panel including representatives of 
DARPA and the three services, as appropriate.
  This is extremely important in light of recent developments in Asia, 
in particular, NTT's announcement of .07 micron device demonstrations 
using proximity x-ray technology and Mitsubishi's recent announcement 
that it is proceeding with a $1 billion semiconductor fabrication 
facility built around synchrotron x-ray lithography technology. These, 
along with the fabrication of the Pohang beam line for x-ray 
lithography in Korea, underscore the worldwide investment being made in 
this critical technology.
  The LAST Center will allow DOD to begin the insertion of x-ray 
technology and alternative semiconductor processing techniques into 
military applications. This Center will be of high value to military 
systems. I believe the Secretary of the Navy should support its 
continuation for a period of 5 years beginning in the Navy's fiscal 
year 1998 budget request.
  Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from Alaska for 
joining me in a discussion of this important matter on the floor of the 
Senate, and I commend him for including this important item in the bill 
before us.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to agree with my colleague 
from Vermont on the importance of maintaining the defense investment in 
advanced lithography, including proximity x-ray lithography. In 
particular, the research and development that would be undertaken at 
this LAST Center should provide advanced electronics manufacturing 
capabilities, which are essential to our national defense.


          uh-60 air ambulance companies for the national guard

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to briefly share my 
concerns about an issue of importance to National Guard medical 
operations and capabilities in New Mexico and Nevada.
  Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the Senator coming to the floor to share 
his concerns on this issue with his colleagues.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand that at the end of fiscal year 1997, the 
National Guard bureau will only have four National Guard UH-60 air 
ambulance companies throughout the United States. I am greatly 
concerned about the overall lack of air ambulance capability supporting 
our National Guard Forces.
  Mr. DOMENICI. In order to address this shortfall, it would be 
appropriate for the Department of Defense to assess the requirements 
for additional UH-60 air ambulance companies beyond what currently 
exists in the current DOD plan for the National Guard. This review 
should identify the procurement profile for this aircraft, as well as 
associated funding and number of aircraft, in order to satisfy these 
requirements over the next 5 years.
  Mr. STEVENS. I wholeheartedly endorse this review by the Department 
of Defense, which should be completed and submitted to the 
Congressional Defense Committees no later than April 30, 1997. I 
applaud the Senator from New Mexico for Bringing this issue to the 
committee's attention.


                  MILITARY USE OF A METAL CONDITIONER

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to discuss an important 
matter with my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee. I bring to the chairman's attention a 
remarkable product called MILITEC-1, which is manufactured by a small 
Virginia company. The product is a synthetic metal conditioner that 
makes machines run better, and makes weapons more reliable. This 
permits smoother running machines that consume less power, are more 
reliable, and require less maintenance and parts replacement. MILITEC-1 
can help our military forces save money and human resources on repairs, 
while at the same time have equipment that runs better.
  Tests and extensive experience by both government and commercial 
users have proven MILITEC-1's effectiveness. The Department of Defense 
has issued national stock numbers to facilitate purchase of the product 
by all Federal Government activities, including military units, as well 
as by state and local law enforcement agencies.
  In fact, several Federal law enforcement agencies direct the use of 
MILITEC-1. Indeed, in a recent issue of the Washington Post, a 
spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service was quoted as saying,

       ``Our 2,000 agents and 1,200 officers are issued a small 
     bottle of the stuff with their guns. We've found that it 
     repels water extremely well and keeps weapons operating 
     smoothly. Obviously, that is a high priority for us.''

  I appreciate the Service's concern for its special mission, and I 
believe our troops should have that same advantage.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have heard of the Virginia product my distinguished 
colleague describes, and I concur with his interest in giving our 
military the opportunity to have the advantage that many law 
enforcement agencies already enjoy.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand that some officials in the 
Defense Department have been hesitant to employ a synthetic metal 
conditioner, even for testing, preferring to use only traditional 
lubricants. This is in spite of the fact that a great many field users 
in the military services strongly prefer it over standard-issue 
products. Would the chairman agree that, if the Department requires 
formal performance testing to determine the value of a synthetic metal 
conditioner before approving services-wide use, they should provide 
adequate resources from appropriated funds to conduct such performance 
testing?
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Virginia 
that if the Department of Defense wishes to conduct performance tests 
to determine the merit of a synthetic metal conditioner for military 
use, the Department should consider funding such tests from within 
available funds.


                        PCB AND ASBESTOS REMOVAL

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska help me 
understand a part of the bill. Within the Formerly Used Defense Site 
Program you have added $25,000,000 for PCB and asbestos removal. We 
have a situation out at the University of Nebraska where the Department 
turned over some land and buildings to the university in the 1960's. 
The problem is that the buildings contained ammunition and are 
contaminated. We now need to tear them down. However, the cost of 
structural demolition and removal of the asbestos and contamination 
within these buildings is considerable. Is the purpose of this 
$25,000,000 for problems like we have at the University of Nebraska?
  Mr. STEVENS. This is exactly the kind of problem we have heard about. 
That is why we added this funding. We want to accelerate the cleanup of 
these sites wherever possible.
  Mr. KERREY. I will work with the Department to help the University of 
Nebraska to demolish these structures and remove this asbestos. I thank 
the Senator from Alaska.


                            eoa-type systems

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to enter 
into colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Alaska, my friend, 
Mr. Stevens.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would be pleased to enter into a 
colloquy with my friend from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. First let me compliment the Senator on the excellent work 
the committee has done this year. This is an outstanding bill. I would 
also like to thank staff for their hard work and dedication. As you 
know, I have a keen interest in the Army's electronic maintenance 
programs. I would, therefore, appreciate a clarification of the 
guidance provided in the committee report dealing with the purchase of 
electro optic test equipment.
  The report directs the Army not to procure any sole-source off-
vehicle E-O test equipment until the results of a study have been 
provided to the defense committees of Congress. My question is, Does 
this guidance restrict the procurement of variants of the Electro Optic 
Augmentation System, an on-vehicle tester?
  Mr. STEVENS. Let me assure the Senator that the committee's guidance

[[Page S7957]]

was not intended to restrict the purchase of EOA-type systems.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I appreciate the clarification of this important matter. 
I thank the Senator.


                   white house communications support

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, historically the White House 
Communications Agency, commonly referred to as WHCA, has provided 
telecommunications support for the President in his role as Commander 
in Chief. WHCA, as part of its mission, has provided radio 
communications, telephone, and other telecommunications resources to 
the Secret Service under the authority of the Presidential Protection 
Assistance Act of 1976. This act states that the assistance is provided 
to the Secret Service without reimbursement provided that the 
assistance is on a ``temporary basis''.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is correct. This WHCA support to the Secret Service 
had been provided on a non-reimbursable basis for 15 years, absent a 
clear definition of ``temporary basis.'' As I understand the issue, 
this support which is provided to the Secret Service is essential and 
must be provided regardless of the funding source.
  Mr. SHELBY. Absolutely, the support is essential in order for the 
Secret Service to effectively carry out their protective mission. The 
15-year practice of providing this support under the Presidential 
Assistance Act has worked well. Recently, because of strict 
interpretations of that act it has been suggested that the funding to 
cover the cost of this support be transferred to the Secret Service so 
that they can then return the funds to the Defense Department to cover 
the cost.
  Mr. STEVENS. In other words, there is no savings and there is 
increased redtape. This appears to be a typical bureaucratic solution--
fix something that is not broken.
  Mr. SHELBY. Exactly. For 15 years this essential support is provided 
by WHCA and funded through the Defense Department. Now, because after 
15 years someone has decided to interpret guidelines differently, we 
must alter the funding process and add bureaucratic redtape to the 
process that works just fine. Providing the funds to the Secret Service 
so that they can return it to the White House Communications Agency is 
a waste of time and effort. There are no savings, just added redtape.
  Mr. STEVENS. Was this change requested by the Secret Service or WHCA?
  Mr. SHELBY. To my knowledge, these agencies did not request such a 
change. The system which existed for 15 years was fine. Certainly, if 
required to proceed with this reimbursement procedure they will comply. 
The support services are essential. Once again, however, if it isn't 
broke, don't fix it.
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree. If the support is essential and has been 
provided for so many years there is no need to create more 
administrative redtape. Not only won't this process save taxpayer 
dollars, it will cost more money due to the increased administrative 
processes. The support is essential and should be funded in the most 
streamlined of methods. We should continue to fund this support 
directly to WHCA and their support of the Secret Service should 
continue.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I understand that the House has included 
language in their bill regarding this issue. I would hope that we can 
examine this issue closely in conference to ensure that the most 
efficient and cost-effective procedure to address this issue will be 
implemented.
  Mr. STEVENS. We will certainly address it, and hopefully continue to 
fund this support program without added redtape.


                             b-52h bombers

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I note that the distinguished chairman and 
ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee are on the 
floor, and I would like to engage in a colloquy for the purposes of 
discussing the subcommittee's intentions regarding B-52H bombers.
  As my colleagues are aware, during floor consideration of the fiscal 
year 1997 Defense Authorization bill, I offered an amendment with my 
distinguished colleague from North Dakota which clarified the Senate's 
intent regarding B-52's by instructing the Secretary of the Air Force 
to retain the entire inventory of these battle tested, dual-capable 
bombers in active status, and to ensure that aircraft in attrition 
reserve would receive the standard maintenance and upgrades just like 
other B-52's. Our amendment was unanimously approved by the Senate with 
the full support of the Armed Services Committee, which again this year 
has clearly instructed the Air Force not to retire, or to prepare to 
retire, any B-52's during the fiscal year.
  With passage of an amendment offered by Senator Stevens to the 
defense appropriations bill, a total of $69,500,000 will have been 
added to the fiscal year 1997 defense budget request to maintain the 
entire fleet of 94 B-52H aircraft. In light of this additional funding, 
is my understanding correct that the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee agrees that the Defense Department should not retire, or 
prepare to retire, any B-52's during fiscal year 1997?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. Additional funds have been 
provided for operations and maintenance, militaray personnel, and 
procurement at levels considered appropriate to allow all B-52's to be 
retained in active and attrition reserve status.
  Mr. CONRAD. Would the chairman also agree that all the B-52's should 
receive standard maintenance and upgrades?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is the subcommittee's intent. Depriving the 
attrition reserve bombers of the maintenance and modifications required 
for them to operate in combat would be inconsistent with the 
subcommitte's understanding of what attrition reserve status entails.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the chairman for this strong statement of 
support. Might I ask the distinguished ranking member whether he shares 
this understanding?
  Mr. INOUYE. I certainly do. I am pleased that we were able to provide 
the funding necessary to ensure that there be no question that B-52's 
should not be retired, or prepared for retirement, during fiscal year 
1997.
  Mr. CONRAD. Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
help on this extremely important matter, and would like to clarify a 
last point for the Record. As my friends on the Defense Subcommittee 
are aware, the Air Force's estimates of the additional funding required 
to maintain these aircraft have fluctuated over the past several 
months. Would the subcommittee be willing to reallocate B-52 funds 
between appropriations accounts in conference, or to describe in the 
conference managers' statement, the subcommittee's understanding of how 
the additional $69,500,000 is to be spent, should clarification be 
necessary?
  Mr. STEVENS. I understand my friend's concerns, and, if necessary, we 
could raise these matters in the conference with our House 
counterparts. I also would add, in recognition of my friend's interests 
in this matter, that we will do our best to come out of conference with 
the full $69,500,000 we have allocated for the B-52's.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator from North Dakota raises a valid point, and I 
know that the chairman and I will try to accommodate him should it 
become clear that some reallocation of B-52 funds between 
appropriations accounts, or further language clarification, is 
advisable.
  Mr. CONRAD. Once again I thank the Defense Subcommittee's 
distinguished leadership for their strong support. I greatly appreciate 
their cooperation throughout this process and the hard work of their 
able staff members, and am pleased that we have been able to work 
together to maintain our entire fleet of B-52's.


                              telemedicine

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose 
of engaging my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, in a colloquy regarding support to the 
Army, Navy, Air Force, and other branches of the military in their 
efforts to promote and utilize the innovative delivery of telemedicine 
processes and techniques which improve the responsiveness and quality 
of care.
  A coordinated and innovative telemedicine system designed to enhance 
the medical and behavioral care provided to personnel who have been 
exposed to high-trauma events would be of considerable benefit to the 
U.S. military. It would expand the knowledge

[[Page S7958]]

base needed for successfully delivering both emergency and disaster 
management services and would also expand the applications of 
telemedicine and enhance diagnostic and treatment coordination and 
delivery. Given the experience of the U.S. military during and since 
the Persian Gulf war and the increased threat posed by weapons of mass 
destruction the military could benefit greatly from such a resource.
  I would further note that the northeast region of the United States 
is inadequately represented in national telemedicine research. I urge 
the conferees to consider directing the Department of Defense to 
allocate a portion of the $20 million for telemedicine in the Defense 
appropriation's fiscal year 1997 bill, to an organization in the 
northeastern United States with lengthy experience in organizing and 
providing comprehensive medical and behavioral services. A not-for-
profit health care organization engaged in the delivery of medical 
care, in medical and allied health education and training, and in 
medical research would be the most appropriate type of entity for 
achieving expanded applications and coordination of telemedicine 
efforts. Both the U.S. military and the northeast region would benefit 
from allocating funds to a qualified entity in the region.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would say to the distinguished senior 
Senator from Pennsylvania that I have long been a supporter of 
telemedicine and its application to military medicine. I believe that 
telemedicine can significantly enhance medical readiness and I 
encourage the Department of Defense to seek innovative opportunities to 
expand those capabilities. I will be happy to work with the senior 
Senator from Pennsylvania and the Department of Defense to ensure that 
such proposals, especially those qualified proposals being put forward 
in the northeast region of the United States, receive a thorough review 
for possible inclusion into the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense 
telemedicine programs.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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 see the Senator from Iowa is here. We 
have discussed an agreement concerning an amendment he is to offer.
  He is going to offer an amendment to the bill pertaining to the 
number of general officers, I believe, in the Marine Corps.
  I just simply want to ask unanimous consent that his amendment not be 
subject to a second-degree amendment but that he be permitted to modify 
that amendment during the debate if he so wishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. I have an amendment I am going to offer, but I do not 
want to send it to the desk at this point. I hope we will be able to do 
today what we were not able to do in late June when I discussed this 
very same issue on the Defense authorization bill. I hope that I have a 
chance to have some dialog in a very formal way of educating our 
colleagues about this issue I am raising, and I hope to have that with 
some members of the Senate Armed Services Committee as well as 
prominent members of the Senate Appropriations Committee who are in the 
Chamber.
  To remind my colleagues, this is the issue of whether or not we need 
12 more Marine generals. This issue, I admit, appears to be 
micromanaging the Defense Department. Most of my speeches on the 
Defense Department come during the budget debate, the budget resolution 
debate which is very much a macro-approach on defense expenditures.
  I think, however, that in the sense of micromanaging we raise a point 
of how money is being spent because if my amendment which I will offer 
would be adopted, I do not pretend to subtract big dollars from the 
appropriations bill that is before us. The issue here is a broader 
issue of what are the priorities within our military establishment. We 
hear from the Secretary of Defense, we hear from the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, and maybe we all agree, of the need for 
modernization of the military, the updating of our capabilities, that 
spending money on that is a very high priority. And so we are seeing in 
the days now beyond the cold war era and also in the era of efforts to 
reduce the deficit and hopefully to balance the budget, a military 
force structure that is downsizing.
  So if it appears to be micromanaging, it is only because it is so 
very obvious that when you have a downsizing taking place, why are we 
``topsizing'' the administrative overhead in the form of more brass at 
the top. The Marines like to say--and I think they have every right to 
say this--they are looking for ``a few good men.'' Obviously, today we 
amend that, that the Marines are looking for a few good men and women.
  I think most of us remember that slogan on TV or we saw it in a 
magazine or we even saw it on bumper stickers. For me, these words 
always spoke the truth, because even though I have not been in the 
military I had a brother that proudly served in World War II in the 
Marines, and I remember as a teenager putting as many of his Marine 
emblems on as I could because I wanted to be just like my brother. And 
so I have great admiration for any branch of military service, but if 
there is one that I always thought most of it was the Marines because 
of my brother. And whether then in World War II, when they had 485,000 
troops with 70 generals, or today, when they have 173,000 with 68 
generals, you can only conclude that the Marine Corps is small but it 
is very tough, it is very disciplined, and, quite frankly, in every 
sense it is very different from the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. 
The Marines are proud of it, and Americans ought to be proud of it.
  But when I see these proposals that come before us, I think something 
has changed, that the Marines are not just looking for a few good men 
and women anymore. With this appropriation bill, and with the 
authorization bill, they are looking for a few more generals, 12 to be 
exact. The Marines want the extra generals at a time when the Marine 
Corps is getting smaller.
  Let me say, I hoped to have dialog with the Senate Armed Services 
Committee on this. But this issue that is included in the Senate Armed 
Services Committee bill was very hotly debated in the deliberations of 
the House Armed Services Committee, and the House Armed Services 
Committee rejected--rejected--the Marine Corps' attempt to authorize 12 
more generals. So, even within this Congress there is a diverse opinion 
on whether or not this is justified. So they want extra generals.
  The other services downsizing like the Marine Corps. The Department 
of Defense has cut the number of general officers in the other services 
by 20 percent. You will see from the chart here how this is divided up, 
but a total figure has dropped by 204 since we have had the downsizing 
of the military, from 1,055 in 1987 to 851 in 1995. So, why does the 
Marine Corps need a few more generals to lead fewer men and women?
  You see here, the Army has gone from about 400 in 1987 down to this 
figure that is under 300. The Air Force has gone from 335 down to just 
a little over 300. The Navy, at 250-plus admirals, down just a little 
bit, but down some. The Marine Corps has been very steady right here--
very steady during this period of time. I am not arguing here that the 
Marines should have downsized in the number of general officers. I am 
not arguing that at all. I am just arguing for the point of view that 
the downsizing has gone on and there has been a downsizing in the 
number of generals and admirals. The Marines have been very steady. I 
am arguing that they should not be going up.
  While this is going down, why, then, do we raise this up 
considerably, by 12,

[[Page S7959]]

by another 20 percent, more generals to lead fewer men and women? Why 
is the Marine Corps trying to have more brass at the top when the 
bottom is getting smaller? Why is the Marine Corps top-sizing when, in 
fact, throughout the branches it is downsizing? Why does the Marine 
Corps want more generals when junior officers and sergeants are getting 
thrown out?
  Of course, Mr. President, the heart and soul of the Marine Corps are 
its 27 infantry battalions. This is what the Marine Corps is all about. 
Everything the Marine Corps does is focused on moving, protecting, and 
supporting these 27 battalions. If those 27 battalions are not healthy, 
then the Marine Corps is not strong.
  A doctor has been examining the vital signs of the 27 battalions, and 
they are not up to snuff. There are, in fact, critical shortages within 
the Marines. It does not happen to be whether or not they need 12 more 
generals. The critical shortage is of platoon commanders and sergeants. 
Lieutenants and sergeants are the ones who train the force and keep it 
ready to go. If war broke out, they would lead these units in battle. 
So why is the Marine Corps adding generals when there is a critical 
shortage of sergeants? The Marine Corps could buy the sergeants it 
needs at the price of the 12 generals it is asking for.
  I raised, as I said before, these questions on June 26 when the 
Defense authorization bill was on the floor. Senator Warner responded 
to my question on June 28. I did not have an opportunity to have a 
dialog with him on the floor of the Senate on it, but he spent a great 
deal of time, I am sure, putting together a statement. It was in the 
Record, and I have had a chance to study that. Frankly, I still do not 
understand the answers. So that is why I am here today.

  I raise these questions again for one reason. The Defense 
authorization bill as approved by this body on July 10 contains a 
special provision. That special provision is section 405. Section 405 
increases the number of generals from 68 to 80. That is 12 more 
generals. The House-passed version of the bill contains no such 
authority. As I said, there was very heated debate on this in the House 
Armed Services Committee. The House rejected the request for more 
Marine generals.
  In 1987, as you can see here, the end strength of the marines was, to 
be exact, 199,525. At that time, the Marine Corps had a total of 70 
generals, 2 more than what they have right now. Those 70 generals led 
the Marine Corps through the gulf war, which would have been here in 
1990-91. And then, like every other branch, the Marine Corps began 
downsizing. The number of generals during this period of time dropped 
by just 2, to 68. But marine end strength continued a gradual decline 
until fiscal year 1994, right here, when it got down to 174,158. This 
year it dropped off again to, to be exact, 172,434. That is a reduction 
of 27,091 marines since fiscal year 1987. Despite the continuing drop 
in end strength, the number of generals stayed, as I said here--the 
number of generals has been very constant during this period of time, 
and it is still constant over here at 68 to 70; 68 right now is the 
exact number.
  Despite the continuing drop in end strength, we see this level at 68 
provided for until section 405 came along, to authorize 80 Marine 
generals. That would cause this figure to head north. My question is, 
why?
  I am sure we are going to have an answer to that. I hope it is an 
answer that will negate my need for this amendment. But, frankly, I 
think I have had a chance to study several documents. I have had a 
chance to study several documents that I am going to make some 
reference to in further debate on my amendment, that tell me that, 
first of all, some of the things that have been told to Senators about 
why these additional Marine generals are needed, are simply not true. I 
will also try to demonstrate where the real need in the military is.

  I said more sergeants and more commanding officers. We have evidence 
of that. There are papers prepared by a Marine Corps major that raise 
questions about the need for certain redundant commands and the extra 
generals to run them, and also the issue of the layers of command that 
we have, unnecessary duplication.
  Then there is a KAPOS study referred to by Senator Warner in his 
statement that I think shows me something different than what it showed 
to Senator Warner that I want to discuss with my colleagues.
  So why do 27,000 fewer Marines need more generals giving them orders? 
These are the reasons that I have heard so far, and I am going to lay 
these out, but my colleagues on the opposite side of this issue will 
discuss these as well.
  First, we have the explanation given on page 279 of the Armed 
Services Committee report:

       This increase is intended to permit the Marine Corps to 
     have greater representation at the general officer level on 
     the Department of Navy/Secretariat staff and in the joint 
     arena. . . .

  So, are these folks then, by that explanation, to become bureaucratic 
warriors?
  The second argument that is given is that technology has changed the 
nature of warfare. More generals are needed to run the battle. Some 
would say this is an exact outgrowth of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 
1986, and that is why this is necessary. I think there is an awful lot 
about Goldwater-Nichols that we need to look at that is very 
legitimate. But it is in regard to the efficiency that comes as a 
result of Goldwater-Nichols, not the administrative overhead and waste 
that Goldwater-Nichols might generate if misinterpreted and used as an 
excuse for in justifying 12 additional generals at this point.
  Last, another rationale given. Some contend that the Marines need the 
additional 12 general officers to fill critical war-fighting billets. 
Who is going to argue with that one?
  But I have some points I want to make about that. I think we will 
show, at most, a very, very small minority of these might go to that 
purpose, because we want to make sure that we maintain the war-fighting 
capability of every service. National defense is a primary 
responsibility of the Federal Government, and no other level of 
government in the United States contributes to that.
  So, as I said, we have these four arguments, and many more, that 
might be given. I do not understand these arguments. Why do the Marines 
need more generals when the Marine Corps is downsizing, as you see what 
has happened since 1986. Why increase the number of generals when there 
is a critical shortage of sergeants and lieutenants in the infantry 
battalions? These critical war-fighting billets need to be filled 
before we add wasteful and unnecessary brass at the top.
  I want to yield the floor now, because I hope to encourage discussion 
on this. I will have some further responses, but I hope I have more 
specific comments from the other side. I do not mean the Democratic 
side, I mean people presumably on the Armed Services Committee, both 
Republican and Democrat, who disagree with my point of view, and then I 
would like to speak again.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am not going to take but just a few 
minutes. The point that has been raised by the able Senator is in 
conference now. This is not an appropriations matter. It is in the bill 
we passed in the Senate. It will be decided in conference. This is not 
an authorization bill, this is an appropriations bill. The 
authorization bill that the Senate passed includes certain figures for 
the Marine Corps and the number of generals. The House is different. So 
they will decide that issue there.
  This is an appropriations measure, and I think it will be a mistake 
to even consider this here, because it will be settled in conference. 
The conference will determine this matter, and since it is not an 
appropriations matter, I suggest that we not consider it here, and I 
ask the able Senator if he will withdraw his amendment and let it be 
settled in conference?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. You have asked a very legitimate question, but I was 
hoping to have discussion on it on the floor during the debate on the 
armed services bill. I had asked Senator Warner, who offered to respond 
to it, but on that particular day I was speaking, he could not respond 
because he did not have the answer right then, he wanted to study it. 
And that is legitimate.
  I asked him if he would call me to the floor the next day and to give 
me

[[Page S7960]]

an opportunity to respond. He probably did not have time, so I am not 
stating there is fault. I am simply stating what I believe to be a 
fact. So we did not have a discussion of this.
  Mr. THURMOND. I assure the Senator, it will receive careful 
consideration in the conference.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I know that, but I think the conference will benefit 
from a discussion of this issue on the floor of the Senate that we did 
not have during the authorization bill. That is why I bring it here. I 
legitimately bring it here because I am not trying to cut out x number 
of dollars to take it away from the Defense Department, I am only 
asking my colleagues to choose the necessity of 12 additional generals 
in the Marine Corps versus the needs of modernization and a lot of 
other needs of the military and have the money spent on those needs 
that Secretary Perry has put forth.
  So I hope that you will agree with me that even though this does 
involve the priority of money within the Defense Department, and that 
makes it an appropriations issue, as I see it, I say to my 
distinguished colleague from South Carolina, I do not want to withdraw 
it at this point.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. THURMOND. I will be pleased to yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the ratio of general officers to enlisted 
ranks in the Air Force is 1 to 1,380; in the Army, it is 1 to 1,552; in 
the Navy, it is 1 to 2,143; in the Marine Corps, it is 1 to 2,558.
  There are 57 members of the headquarters staff who are of general 
rank; they are admirals in the Navy. There are 51 in the Army, 45 in 
the Air Force and 18 in the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps has the 
lowest number of generals. That is the lowest number of generals per 
enlisted ranks, and it has the lowest number of generals in the service 
headquarters. They are more with their troops than the others. The 
others have probably more sweeping responsibilities in terms of 
headquarters staff. I am not being critical to the alignment.

  I say, I do agree with the Senator from South Carolina. We have never 
tried to regulate through the appropriations process the number of 
general officers. The time might come when we take that battle on. But 
we have not done it so far. I see no reason to do it now.
  The Senator's amendment would say that none of the funds appropriated 
by this act could be used to support more than 68 general officers on 
active duty in the Marine Corps. It is opposed by the Marine Corps, 
obviously, because they have this, what we call, the tooth to tail 
ratio of 1 to 2,568, which is almost twice that of the Army. And they 
have one-third of the general officers in their headquarters staff than 
the Army does.
  So I really urge the Senator again to not persist. This matter was 
debated on the Armed Services bill. It is in conference.
  I see the Senator from Idaho, who is the chairman of that 
subcommittee, is here now. I will be happy not to make a motion to 
table yet if he wishes to speak to the matter. But it is my feeling 
that this is not an appropriate debate for an appropriations bill.
  We do not deal with force structure. We do not deal with the 
allocation between the generals and the enlisted, and officers in 
general, between officers and the enlisted corps, except at the request 
of the Armed Services Committee when we do fund separate items they 
have requested.
  So I believe, I say to the Senator, this is not a proper debate for 
the appropriations process. I do not say that in the sense of judging 
this Senator's right to bring the matter to the floor. But I intend to 
make a motion to table as soon as the Senator has completed his 
statement.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I just want to say this again. This is 
not an authorization bill. This is an appropriations bill. This very 
item is in conference now between the Senate and the House, because 
they did not agree with this. I want to assure the Senator that his 
point will be carefully considered and given every consideration in 
that conference. I will see, myself, that it gets careful 
consideration.
  The House and the Senate differ. They can arrive at a conclusion as 
to what decisions should be made. But to bring it up on the floor on 
another bill, an appropriations bill, is really not appropriate. I 
assure the Senator again that we will give it careful consideration 
when we have a conference. And the conference will begin in a few days. 
In fact, the chairman of the House committee and I have talked today 
about starting this conference right away. We expect to meet tomorrow 
to begin this conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. STEVENS. May I inquire of the Senator from Iowa, does he wish to 
make any further statement in this regard?
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. First of all, to comment on the figures, the ratio, 
that the Senator from Alaska gave. I do not think these numbers are 
exactly like what he gave, but I think they are very close. I have a 
chart here because I want to make the very point that the Senator was 
making.

  But what the Senator is suggesting, the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, is that we should solve this problem that the Marines have--
and the Marine ratio is not a problem, the fact that they have one 
general for 2,568 Marines. That is good. That is lean.
  There has been a downsizing here. And it seems to me that you keep 
the Marine ratio where it is. You do not solve the problem by making 
the Marine Corps chubby with generals like the Navy is chubby with 
admirals.
  This is what should happen in this normal downsizing. The number of 
Marines go down, as we have seen here from 199,000 down to 172,000. The 
Army has been downsized. The Air Force has been downsized and the Navy 
has been downsized. You have seen a reduction in the number of general 
officers. You have seen the Marines keep constant during this period of 
time of downsizing.
  I do not find fault with that. I am not saying that should be 
necessarily reduced like the Army, Navy, and Air Force. But more 
generals would bring the Marine Corps number down. At a time of budget 
constraints and at a time when the Secretary of Defense is advising us 
he has to have more money for the modernization of our military force, 
I just think that this is a very wise expenditure of money or a good 
way to set our priorities in the Defense Department.
  So, as I said, I was hoping that there would be a willingness on the 
part of the Armed Services Committee to discuss these issues. I see one 
of the subcommittee chairman of the Armed Services Committee here. I 
would like to defer to the Senator to speak on this point because 
obviously he is here because he disagrees with me. But I want to answer 
some of the points he brings up, if the Senator has strong opposition 
to my amendment.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I am here to affirm what the chairman 
of the Senate Armed Services Committee has stated, what the chairman of 
the Senate Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations has stated, and the 
ranking member. This is not the appropriate bill for this type of 
legislation to be attached to.
  In the subcommittee dealing with military personnel, which I am the 
chairman of, we are dealing with this very issue. I will tell the 
Senator, without going into all the details, because, again, I say to 
my friend from Iowa, we are right in the midst of the very discussions 
that he is suggesting should take place, we are having them, both among 
the Senate conferees and the House conferees, as to whether or not this 
is an appropriate proposal, and also what the appropriate number should 
be.
  I tell the Senator, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Navy, 
they all support this proposal. In fact, we have a letter from the 
Secretary of the Navy to Congressman Sonny Montgomery discussing this 
whole issue. Part of the rationale for this is because of the 
Goldwater-Nichols joint operation. We have situations where, in joint 
command, the marines have had to forego

[[Page S7961]]

their responsibility because they do not have the generals to fulfill 
that role in that joint command.
  So we have some legitimate reasons why the marines have asked for 
this. And you do have, again, the Navy and the Secretary of Defense 
that support this. But as the chairman of the full Armed Services 
Committee has said, we are in conference discussing this on the 
appropriate bill, which is the defense authorization bill, not the 
appropriations bill. So, again, I just say to the Senator from Iowa, I 
think it would be in our best interest if we could remove this 
amendment from the discussion on the appropriations bill. I yield the 
floor.

  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KEMPTHORNE). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Iowa wish to respond to that 
again?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will take some time.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Alaska is going to move to table the 
Senator from Iowa's amendment, but I want to be courteous.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I have not sent the amendment to the desk yet. I will 
go ahead, if that is what the Senator wants me to do. I think the 
statement by the Senator from Idaho, the statement by the Senator from 
South Carolina indicate that they want to discuss this on the basis of 
procedure and not on the basis of substance. So if we cannot have a 
debate on this, then I guess I will take advantage of the time for 
offering my amendment to express my views in the way of informing my 
colleagues in this body why I think some of the arguments that have 
been used in support of these 12 additional Marines are not legitimate 
arguments. I appreciate the attention of people who are involved in 
this debate.
  There is only one point of procedure that I will take advantage of 
now before I save some time on the substance of my amendment. That is, 
remember, this bill that is before us has the appropriations for the 
personnel accounts of the Department of Defense.
  The point being made by my two colleagues on the Armed Services 
Committee that this is not something legitimately discussed in a bill 
that provides the money for the salaries of the people in the military, 
including whether or not we ought to have 12 additional marine 
generals, just is not legitimate. There is no more legitimate point of 
discussing appropriations and the number of slots you are going to fund 
than in the very bill that has the appropriated money for the personnel 
accounts.
  Now, the distinguished Senator from Idaho, who is now in the chair, 
stated the rationale of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation. I will 
respond to that because I think that if that is the reason for this, 
then the rationale behind the Goldwater-Nichols legislation of reducing 
interservice conflict and the duplication between services for getting 
to the mission of each service is not being properly met, because the 
Goldwater-Nichols Act placed special emphasis upon joint operations, 
joint staff, and joint duty.
  Now, we agree on that, I am sure. The present Goldwater-Nichols 
legislation presently exempts 12 joint general officer billets from 
statutory service seals. So there is already consideration in 
Goldwater-Nichols for the needs of joint command, joint operations, 
joint staff, and all of that. We should not consider Goldwater-
Nichols--which, by the way, was passed in 1986--as constituting a 
license to expand joint and service headquarters when the force 
structure is shrinking.
  Now, I quoted in June quite liberally from Marine Gen. John Sheehan. 
I am sure the Marine command has gotten to General Sheehan and said to 
him, ``General Sheehan, call up some Senators and tell them that 
Grassley might be misquoting you or using your statement out of 
context.'' Let me assure you, I have studied what General Sheehan has 
said and what I said in June, and I am going to say that what General 
Sheehan said is not out of context. It is a voice within the Marines 
arguing that we not have a lot of waste on overhead and command, so 
that the Marines can fulfill their responsibility. General Sheehan 
talks about excess headquarters, but the need for excess headquarters 
is generated by general officers who occupy those headquarters that 
General Sheehan is so worried about.
  He said this: ``Headquarters in defense agencies should not be 
growing as the force shrinks. At the end of the day, we need combat 
capability in the field.'' He is--General Sheehan--is commander and 
head of the U.S. Atlantic Command.
  Headquarters should shrink as the force shrinks. I believe that is 
what he is saying. The joint headquarters should replace redundant 
service headquarters. This should happen as the joint headquarters 
begin to perform the missions previously done by service headquarters. 
Joint headquarters were not formed to create another redundant layer of 
bureaucracy. Service headquarters should be reduced or eliminated as 
joint headquarters take charge. That was the whole idea behind the 
Goldwater-Nichols reform: to fuse, to integrate, and to consolidate, 
get rid of wasteful, overlapping commands, headquarters, operations, 
and equipment.
  Marine Corps commands in North Carolina are prime examples of 
redundancy. There are four layers of command headquarters for the 2d 
Marine Division and the 2d Marine Air Wing based in North Carolina. 
Each layer has command headquarters, generals, large staff, buildings, 
vehicles, airplanes--the whole works. The four layers are as follows: 
Layer 1 is the 2d Marine Division and the 2d Marine Air Wing; layer 2 
is the 2d Marine Expeditionary Force colocated with the division; layer 
3 is the Marine Corps Forces Atlantic colocated with the division; and 
layer 4 is the U.S. Atlantic Command at Norfolk, VA, under Marine Corps 
General Sheehan.

  Mr. President, how many of these layers are really needed? Each layer 
exists to command and control ground air teams of the 2d Marine 
Division and the 2d Marine Air Wing. Two layers will get the job done. 
So, two layers are redundant.
  I am not alone in that view. Maj. David A. Anderson--and, of course, 
I do not know Major Anderson, but he wrote an article called 
``Stretched Too Thin,'' raising questions about our shrinking budget 
and about the challenges before us to do more with less. This is an 
issue from the U.S. Naval Institute proceedings, July of this year, 
right now, in fact.
  I ask unanimous consent the article of this Marine Corps major be 
printed in the Record. It is from inside the Marines, another very good 
document for my colleagues if this thing is going to be considered in 
conference, that my colleagues ought to take into consideration.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Stretched Too Thin

            (By Major David A. Anderson, U.S. Marine Corps)

       Realigning to meet the nation's changing needs will require 
     a painful reorganization--to include standing down the III 
     Marine Expeditionary Force on Okinawa--but the Marine Corps 
     that emerges can provide a better capability for the nation 
     and an improved quality of life for the troops.
       The Marine Corps has embarked on a journey into a new era, 
     filled with much uncertainty. This is not new for us; our 
     history is filled with such times of challenge and duress 
     that we as Marines have overcome--a time-honored tradition 
     that we have come to expect of ourselves and our nation of 
     us. This time, however, our challenge is made greater by the 
     environmental turbulence within which we operate; global 
     political uncertainty, downsizing, shrinking defense budgets, 
     changing and competing roles and missions, increasing 
     societal expectations, the ever-increasing pace of 
     technology, and the upswing in jointness and operations other 
     than war.
       The challenge before us is to do more with less. We have 
     done this and continue to do so with uncommon vigor and 
     resourcefulness. In fact, no other organization--military or 
     otherwise--does a better job of allocating scarce resources 
     to competing needs and maximizing the benefits than the 
     Marine Corps. In spite of this, we are approaching our 
     threshold of effectiveness, because our strategy and 
     capabilities are not in sync with today's environment.
       The Marine Corps is affected by two environments--external 
     and internal--each of which consists of five broad elements; 
     political, economic, physical, technological, and societal. 
     The external factors influence the internal policies and 
     practices, which in turn influence our values, attitudes, and 
     behavior.
       Political Elements. The Department of Defense is in the 
     midst of a congressionally mandated reduction in force. But 
     what we have discovered is that because of the unstable 
     nature of global politics, U.S. willingness

[[Page S7962]]

     to intervene, and additional requirements to operate in joint 
     arenas and conduct operations other than war, operational 
     tempo has not been reduced in proportion to force reductions. 
     The Marine Corps' response has been to improve existing 
     capabilities within the reduced force structure and to 
     operate smarter, using advanced technology and our inherent 
     ingenuity.
       The nut that has yet to be cracked, however, is the one 
     that balances operational training, operational deployments, 
     and the morale and welfare of our Marines within current 
     personnel and budget restraints. It is well documented that 
     10-25% of our active-duty force is operationally deployed at 
     any one time. The Marine Corps currently is at approximately 
     87% manning from its peak years of the mid-1980s. It has the 
     longest training pipeline of all the armed services, along 
     with requisite school requirements, joint billet 
     requirements, the manning of a joint task force headquarters, 
     and an inordinately high first-term attrition rate 
     (approximately 30%). This leaves an effective operating force 
     of 50-70% of total personnel strength.
       In an effort to minimize the impact on the operational 
     force, we have established personal staffing goals, prorate 
     distributions of critical military occupational specialties 
     (MOSs) and ranks, and out-of-hide tables of organization (T/
     Os). This has created a phenomenon I call ``peg-holing.'' 
     Let's say there are six people qualified to fill ten billet 
     requirements. Essentially what happens is that respective 
     monitors chase these billets through continuous reassignment, 
     with the squeaky-wheeled command getting the grease, leaving 
     some other command bone dry. As an extreme example, consider 
     the shortage of 0402 logistics majors within the 2d Force 
     Service Support Group. While I was assigned to 2d Landing 
     Support Battalion--from August 1993 to July 1995--the 
     battalion's T/O called for six majors; the staffing goal was 
     two; one was on hand. Another example within the same 
     battalion is 0481 landing support specialists. The T/O calls 
     for 312; on hand were 277, of whom 119 were deployed. The 
     remaining 158 Marines then must support day-to-day II Marine 
     Expeditionary Force operations, meet annual training 
     requirements, fill out-of-hide T/O requirements, and maintain 
     an Air Contingency Force detachment (and also squeeze in 
     schooling or annual leave).
       As additional challenge to our operational force has been 
     the establishment of such new military occupation 
     specialities as computer small systems specialists and the 
     adoption of systems such as the MAGTF Deployment Support 
     System II, which reflect our incorporation of advanced 
     technologies. They have come at the expense of other MOSs, 
     because we have imposed the requirement without increasing 
     overall force strength or compromising mission capabilities. 
     The result--once again--is an overextended operational force.
       Economic Element. Ever deeper defense cuts have come at 
     great expense to the Marine Corps, despite our ability to 
     squeeze more value out of every dollar spent. Those who 
     entered active service after 1 August 1986, upon retiring at 
     20 years, will receive 40% of their base pay instead of the 
     50% received by those who entered prior to this date. 
     Dependent health care is costing active-duty members more 
     each year. Collectively, our equipment has exceeded it 
     service life. The Marine Corps procurement budget is 
     averaging only 50% of the $1.2 billion it needs annually. 
     Prepositioned war reserves have been depleted to offset 
     nonrepairable equipment, and a growing portion of our budget 
     is being spent to repair aging equipment. The Army is 
     acquiring additional bigger, faster, more capable ships in 
     support of its maritime prepositioning force. We are forced 
     to buy and fix less-capable ships.
       Most of our shrinking budget, out of necessity, is being 
     spent to sustain operational forces. This leaves little money 
     to maintain or upgrade existing facilities, including base 
     housing (which is substandard, inadequate, or un-inhabitable 
     in several locations), or to purchase garrison property. Most 
     alarming is the backlog of military construction projects the 
     Marine Corps has accumulated. During a recent visit to the 2d 
     Force Service Support Group, Major General B. Don Lynch noted 
     that at current funding levels, it could take another 100 
     years to fund our current military construction requirements.
       Physical Element. Many of the facilities in which we work 
     and live require extensive renovation or replacement. 
     Complicating our housing problems is the shortage of base 
     quarters in high-cost geographical areas such as Washington, 
     D.C., Southern California, and Hawaii. Often the wait for 
     quarters is as long as 12-24 months, and the best off-base 
     housing locations are well beyond the means of most Marine 
     families. Many Marines must deal with an excessive commute 
     time because they cannot find affordable off-base housing 
     close to work. Those who can afford to buy homes often are 
     reluctant to do so, because they fear having to sell or rent 
     when they are transferred after their typical three-year 
     tours. Furthermore, housing allowances often fall short of 
     the true cost of housing.
       Technological Element. In our rapidly changing age of 
     technology, the accumulation of technology doubles every 
     seven years--faster in some fields. The Marine Corps is doing 
     its best to sort through what it can and cannot use or 
     afford. We are discovering that what we can afford will not 
     keep us at the forefront in operational readiness. In many 
     instances, we are able to buy only enough promising 
     technologies to keep our foot in the door. Often by the time 
     we can afford and fully implement a technology it has become 
     obsolete.
       We are even having difficulty assessing the value of 
     technologies because of personnel shortages. A significant 
     part of adopting new technologies is recognizing the 
     personnel requirements to operate and maintain them. This has 
     placed us in the situation of having to create new MOSs at 
     the expense of others--and thus continue to expand the 
     mission requirements of our Marines.
       Social Element. The word's out on the street that what you 
     will get from the Marine Corps is demanding work, frequent 
     deployments, substandard living quarters, little free time, 
     slow promotions, and fewer reenlistment opportunities. These 
     impressions, the abolishment of the draft, and eroding 
     benefits are making it difficult for the service to attract 
     society's best and brightest young men and women. It is 
     showing in the Marine Corps' first-term enlistments: one-
     third fail to complete their enlistment contracts. This 
     problem probably is multifaceted: there is a prevailing 
     societal attitude of ``If it doesn't feel good, don't do 
     it''; many young people are growing up without healthy role 
     models; and some become disillusioned with the Marine Corps 
     when it fails to meet their expectations. But the most 
     serious contributing factor is that more than 45% of our 
     first-termers enter under some type of enlistment waiver--and 
     not just for minor traffic violations. They include admitted 
     and frequent drug use, serious offenses, juvenile felonies, 
     and medical (to include psychological) waivers.
       I found this figure appalling and unbelievable, so I 
     decided to put it to the test. I randomly surveyed 125 of my 
     first-termers. To my surprise, 57--or 45.6%--had entered with 
     waivers other than for minor traffic violations. As many as 
     49 of the 57 waivers were given at individual recruiting 
     stations. We are having to compromise our institutional 
     standards to meet our enlistment goals. In addition, I found 
     a direct positive correlation between those enlisting with 
     waivers and those who were subject to nonjudicial punishment 
     and first-term attrition.
       Societal pressures and expectations add to our challenge. 
     For example, we must allow for and accommodate marriages of 
     our junior Marines, further exacerbating our leadership 
     challenge and our need to stretch a dollar. Many of these 
     young marriages fail, adding to an already inordinately high 
     divorce rate among Marines. As these marriages deteriorate, 
     we spend significant time providing counseling and dealing 
     with issues such as bad debts and alcohol or spousal and 
     child abuse.
     Reshaping for the Future
       This picture leaves much to be desired, but it is not all 
     gloom and doom. The short answer to our problems is a lot 
     more money and many more quality young men and women with 
     moral fiber and a strong work ethic. Unfortunately, the 
     reality is that our budget most likely will be cut further, 
     our force will get smaller, and societal values and 
     expectations will not change anytime soon. What remains for 
     the Corps to do is to assess more realistic options--those 
     that meet the needs of our nation, preserve our integrity, 
     and stay in line with our Commandant's planning guidance--and 
     choose the one that best meets the challenges of current and 
     future environmental turbulence and is responsive and quickly 
     adaptable to both new threats and emerging opportunities.
       The first step in the process is to re-identify ourselves. 
     Who are we, and what is our role/mission? As the Commandant 
     has stated, ``The Marine Corps is the nation's naval, 
     combined arms, expeditionary force in readiness. Our reason 
     for being is what it always has been--warfighting.'' He 
     further states, ``It is vital that our organization be 
     designed with one goal in mind: success on the battlefield.'' 
     To this end, the Marine Corps should be measured by the 
     return on investment it offers the nation. The two key 
     factors that determine return on investment are competitive 
     effectiveness and strategic responsiveness.
       Competitive effectiveness is a measure of how well we 
     operate. It can be divided into two submeasures: efficiency 
     in swiftly and decisively responding to our nation's needs, 
     and effectiveness in getting the job done. Strategic 
     responsiveness is a measure of how well we relate to the 
     environment. It also can be divided into two submeasures: 
     attractiveness, that is, being the force of choice; and 
     capability responsiveness, or whether capabilities match 
     battlefield needs.
       I believe that our force can be structured and equipped 
     better--to meet the changing needs of our nation and our 
     Commandant's vision for the future, to preserve the integrity 
     of our institutions, improve quality of life for our Marines, 
     and maximize return on investment--within current operating 
     restraints. The proposal is a painful one, but it can 
     preserve our future as the force of choice. We cannot sustain 
     today's Marine Corps and meet tomorrow's needs. A leaner, 
     better-equipped, and more-prepared force should be our 
     objective.
       Our warfighting capabilities should focus on:
       One warfighting Marine expeditionary force (MEF) capable of 
     organizing a Marine air-ground task force (MAGTF) in support 
     of a major regional contingency.
       One warfighting MEF capable of organizing a MAGTF in 
     support of a small-scale regional contingency.

[[Page S7963]]

       One MEF maintaining a fully capable, expeditionary, joint 
     task force headquarters.
       One MEF capable of executing the full range of operations 
     other than war.
       The capability to employ three forward operating Marine 
     forces in the form of Marine expeditionary units (special 
     operations capable) (MEU/SOCs).
       The capability to employ forward operating maritime 
     prepositioning squadrons (MPSs) as part of the Marine Corps 
     Maritime Prepositioning Force as logistics support to a 
     contingency MAGTF.
       A fully integrated indivisible reserve force.
       A force built around this concept could look something like 
     this:
       Commander, Marine Forces Pacific/I MEF, with a colocated 
     headquarters at Camp Pendleton, California, capable of 
     organizing a MAGTF in support of one major regional 
     contingency; employing two forward operating Marine forces in 
     the form of a MEU(SOC), with one in reserve; and employing 
     one operating MPS--with current staffing goal force 
     structure.
       I MEF (Forward), located in Guam or Australia and capable 
     of orchestrating Asian/Pacific Rim contingency operations; a 
     forward logistics base in support of regional contingencies 
     and joint training operations; employing one forward 
     operating MPS.
       III MEF would be stood down entirely (personnel and 
     equipment), with equipment redistributed to I MEF, II MEF, 
     and prepositioned war reserves; personnel reassigned as 
     needed to support I MEF (Forward) mission and to fill I MEF 
     and II MEF shortfalls, as well as joint task force 
     headquarters, joint, and critical non-FMF billets; remaining 
     forced reduced through end-of-active-service and retirement 
     attrition.
       Commander, Marine Forces Atlantic/II MEF/Joint Task Force 
     Headquarters, with co-located headquarters at Camp Lejeune, 
     North Carolina, and joint headquarters at Norfolk, Virginia, 
     tasked with employing one warfighting MEF capable of 
     organizing a MAGTF in support of a small-scale regional 
     contingency; employing a fully capable, expeditionary, joint 
     task force headquarters; executing the full range of 
     operations other than war; employing one forward-operating 
     Marine force in the form of a MEU(SOC) with one in reserve; 
     employing one forward-operating MPS. This includes standing 
     down one infantry-regiment equivalent and proportionate 
     support personnel/equipment, reassigning personnel and 
     reducing strength equivalent through end-of-active-service 
     and retirement attrition and redistributing equipment.
       Non-FMF/Support Commands capable of sustaining or improving 
     current FMF support within the present command structure, 
     with a reduction of personnel strength in line with FMF force 
     reduction and an increased number of joint billets, as 
     required.
       This plan reduces our force strength by 17,000-22,000, with 
     the following advantages:
       It complies with the Commandant's planning guidance.
       It reduces force strength 10-12 percent without 
     significantly compromising operational capabilities.
       It reduces overseas deployments by 40-60%, thus saving 
     money and improving force morale.
       It allows us to divert dollars previously committed to 
     support deployments and procurement dollars planned for 
     replacing aging equipment to other areas historically 
     neglected because of funding shortages, as well as to 
     innovative technologies and concepts that will put us at the 
     cutting edge in expeditionary force readiness.
       It makes the Marine Corps more appealing to young men and 
     women, which eventually will allow for more selective 
     recruiting.
       It increases the nation's return on its investment in the 
     Marine Corps.
       It shrinks the strategy-capability gap.
       This is not a panacea for all our ailments, nor does it 
     completely close our strategy-capability gap. It is, however, 
     a necessary step in the right direction, when coupled with 
     initiatives to get more Department of the Navy/Defense 
     dollars, divest ourselves of unproductive areas, streamline 
     processes, lengthen tours, shorten promotion time, and 
     improve reenlistment incentives.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. By eliminating redundant commands, more marine generals 
would be available for joint duty. Unfortunately, that is not what the 
Marine Corps has in mind. The Marine Corps wants, obviously, to have it 
both ways. They want to keep generals in the old redundant marine 
headquarters. In fact, the Marine Corps would like to place at least 
three of these 12 new generals in these overlapping commands.
  Get this: We have 12 more generals. You say we need them because of 
Goldwater-Nichols. They want to place three of these new generals in 
these overlapping commands. They want to assign more generals to the 
new joint headquarters, too. I think the Marine Corps needs to make a 
choice and to place priorities where they belong. That is the argument, 
my comment, on Goldwater-Nichols.
  The second is the use by the Senate Armed Services Committee of the 
rationale in its report language where it wants to make very clear that 
the extra generals are not needed for war-fighting jobs. It kind of 
backs up what I said in regard to the supposed argument that we need 
more generals because of the requirements of Goldwater-Nichols. The 
Armed Services Committee says they are not needed for war-fighting 
jobs. Remember, the purpose of our defense is the defense of the 
country. That involves the potential of going to war. That is war 
fighting.
  I want to read the language one more time:

       The increase is intended to permit the Marine Corps to have 
     greater representation at the general officer level on the 
     Department of Navy Secretariat staff and in the joint arena.

  Now, that is not war fighting. The committee is saying that these 
generals are needed for bureaucratic infighting. That is the way I read 
it. And where? Maybe in the Pentagon budget wars.
  Now, the Marine Corps tells an entirely different story. The Marine 
Corps has provided a list of 14 positions that might be filled with new 
generals.
  Now, I know the legislation only called for 12, but the list covers 
14 slots. I ask unanimous consent to have the list of these 14 generals 
for the Marine Corps printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 USMC Additional authorization request

       CG, II Marine Expeditionary Force.
       DepCG, I Marine Expeditionary Force.
       DepComdr, MarForLant.
       ADC, 1st Marine Division.
       ADC, 2d Marine Division.
       AWC, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing.
       CG, MCRC/ERR.
       CG, MCRC/WRR.
       Dir, Warfighting Development Integration Division.
       ADC/S P&R (Programs).
       Joint (NMCC-4).
       Joint (USPACOM).
       Joint (USCentCom).
       Joint (USSouthCom).

  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Marine Corps says that 12 additional generals are 
needed to fill vacant war-fighting positions. To the members of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, you say in your report that they are 
not needed for war fighting, that they are needed because of the needs 
within the Pentagon, within the bureaucracy. The marines themselves say 
they need the additional generals to fill vacant war-fighting 
positions.
  Now, it seems to me that we ought to be able to have the Armed 
Services Committee and the Marine Corps talking off the same song sheet 
if there is a need for it. Those are the Marine Corps' own words. I 
underscore in this effort the word ``vacant''--to fill vacant war-
fighting positions.
  First, if you look at these, to say that these are war-fighting 
positions--and I am using the Marine Corps' rationale, not the Armed 
Services Committee's rationale--I think that would really be stretching 
the point. Three of the positions, by the Marine Corps' own request, 
are in the Pentagon. I hope I do not insult people when I say that is 
not war fighting. I understand that the entire military is dedicated to 
war fighting, yes, but close to the battlefield, no.
  Two of these generals are for recruiting. That is not war fighting. 
Three are high-level joint headquarters positions. That is not war 
fighting. Five or six are connected with Marine combat forces, and that 
is getting close to war fighting. But now, just reading the request of 
what the marines want to do with 14 additional generals does not fully 
explain the issue. So you have to dig deeper.
  When you get down to the nitty-gritty, Mr. President, you see that 
few, if any, of the new generals would actually fill vacant--emphasis 
on ``vacant''--war-fighting positions. Now, that is, again, the Marine 
Corps rationale for these generals, not the Senate Armed Services 
Committee rationale for generals. So to back up the assertion I just 
made, you need to examine each proposed billet. I have done that. To do 
that, you need two documents. You need the Department of Defense 
directory entitled ``General Officer Worldwide Roster.'' I have it 
here. This is the March 1996 issue. And you also need the ``United 
States Marine Corps General Officers Position List,'' provided by the 
Director of Personnel Management on July 9, 1996.
  If you go down the list--and I am not going to go through all these 
positions

[[Page S7964]]

because I do not think I have to in order to justify my statements--you 
can look at the first position at the top of the list. No. 1, 
commanding general of the Second Marine Expeditionary Force. Now then, 
if you consult the Department of Defense directory, they say the 
position is already filled by Lt. Gen. Charles E. Wilhelm. General 
Wilhelm wears a second hat as commander of the Marine Corps Forces 
Atlantic.
  If you look at the second position on the list, it is deputy 
commanding general, First Marine Expeditionary Force. If you look at 
the directory in the Department of Defense, that position is also 
filled. It is filled by an acting brigadier general, Edward R. 
Langston, Jr., a senior colonel doing a general's job. He wears a 
general's insignia but is paid as a colonel. In military language, he 
is ``frocked.'' General Langston is the deputy under Gen. Anthony C. 
Zinni, the commanding general. Mr. President, I could go through all 
the positions, but the results are the same.
  Bottom line: All but one of the existing positions is filled. Only 
one is actually vacant. That is why I have said that the marines say 
they want an additional 14 marines to fill vacant war-fighting 
positions. The Senate Armed Services Committee says they need them not 
for war fighting, but for other purposes.
  I want to place in the Record the status of each of the proposed 
posts that I have referred to. I ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Possible Assignments for New Generals

       Main argument: The Marine Corps says it needs the 
     additional 12 generals to fill critical billets as follows:
       No. 1. Position: Commanding General, 2ND Marine 
     Expeditionary Force.--Current Status: Filled by Lieutenant 
     General Charles E. Wilhelm.
       No. 2. Position: Deputy Commanding General, 1ST Marine 
     Expeditionary Forces--Current Status: Filled by acting** 
     Brigadier General Edward R. Langston, Jr.
       No. 3. Position: Deputy Commander, Marine Corps Forces 
     Atlantic.--Current Status: Filled by acting** Brigadier 
     General Martin R. Berndt.
       No. 4. Position: Assistant Division Commander, 1st Marine 
     Division.--Current Status: Filled by acting** Brigadier 
     General Jan C. Huly.
       No. 5. Position: Assistant Division Commander, 2ND Marine 
     Division.--Current Status: Vacant.
       No. 6. Position: Assistant Wing Commander, 2ND Marine Air 
     Wing.--Current Status: Filled by colonel selected for 
     general.
       No. 7. Position: Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruit 
     Depot/Eastern Recruiting Region.--Current Status: Filled by 
     acting** Brigadier General Jerry F. Humble.
       No. 8. Position: Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruit 
     Depot/Western Recruiting Region.--Current Status: Filled by 
     acting** Brigadier General Garry L. Parks.
       No. 9. Position: Director, Warfighting Development 
     Integration Division.--Current Status: New Position.
       No. 10. Position: Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for 
     Programs and Resources (Programs).--Current Status: Filled by 
     Major General Thomas A. Braaten (Deputy Chief of Staff for 
     Programs & Resources is Major General Jeffrey W. Oster).
       No. 11. Position: Joint Staff, National Military Command 
     Center.--Current Status: Filled by acting** Brigadier General 
     Dennis T. Krupp.
       No. 12. Position: Joint, U.S. Southern Command--Current 
     Status: New Position.
       No. 13. Position: Joint, U.S. Pacific Command--Current 
     Status: New Position (Marine Corps is represented by Major 
     General Martin R. Steele as Director for Strategic Planning & 
     Policy).
       No. 14. Position: Joint, U.S. Central Command--Current 
     Status: New Position (Marine Corps is represented by 
     Lieutenant General Richard I. Neal as Deputy CINC and by 
     Brigadier General Matthew E. Brodrick as Commander Forward 
     Headquarters Element/Inspector General).
       Recap: 9 filled**; 1 vacant; and 4 new.
       **Six of the nine positions are filled by acting brigadier 
     generals. These are senior colonels who occupy a general's 
     billet. He or she wears the insignia of a brigadier general 
     but is paid as a colonel. The Marine Corps refers to this 
     status as ``frocked.''
       Source: Department of Defense, General/Flag Officer 
     Worldwide Roster, March 1996; Updated and verified by Marine 
     Corps document dated July 9, 1996.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as I have said, 9 of the 14 proposed 
general officers positions are already occupied. Of the nine occupied 
positions, one is filled by a lieutenant general, one is filled by a 
major general, one is filled by a general selectee, and six are filled 
by acting brigadier generals.
  So, Mr. President, it seems like these vacant--again, I emphasize the 
word ``vacant''--war-fighting positions are already well covered. They 
are filled.
  Mr. President, there is one thing about all this that really bothers 
me, and that is the one vacant position. I want to talk about that one 
vacant position. Of all of the positions, the vacant one seems like the 
most important one, and ought to be filled: assistant commander of the 
2d Marine Division. It is not like there is a gaping hole in the 
command structure. As I understand it, the division's chief of staff is 
doing the job. He is a senior colonel, who is getting excellent 
experience, experience that is preparing him for promotion to general. 
But if this position is as important as I think it is, why is this 
position not filled? Why is the Marine Corps fattening up headquarters 
staff with generals when one of its three divisions is short a general 
officer?
  If war fighting is the top priority--and that is what the Marines 
say, not what the Senate Armed Services Committee said--why are so few 
generals assigned to war-fighting billets? Only 25 percent of all 
Marine generals are in combat posts. About 50 percent of the Marine 
generals are in the Washington, DC, area. Are these misplaced 
priorities? Are Marine generals in the wrong place? If the Marine Corps 
is short of generals in war-fighting commands, then some generals 
should be moved. They should be moved from lower priority command 
headquarters to top priority combat jobs.
  Mr. President, war fighting is not the driving force behind the 
proposal for additional Marine generals. If it were, the proposal would 
be linked to force structure. But it cannot be linked to force 
structure because, as I have shown so many times with my charts--and I 
will not get them out again--the structure is shrinking. This happens 
to be the Marines--down from 199,000 in 1987 to 172,000 right now.
  So it seems to me that might not argue for fewer generals, but it 
surely does not argue for 12 more generals. So it had to be hooked up 
to something else. That something else is vacant headquarter billets. 
That is what is driving this.
  The Marine Corps commissioned an independent study to figure out 
exactly how many more generals were needed to fill these posts. The 
study was conducted by Kapos Associates, Inc. That study is fairly 
thick, and it was referred to by Senator Warner in his response to my 
statement in June. I do not know whether he actually labeled it as the 
Kapos study. But I think it is the only one he could have been 
referring to. It is entitled ``An Analysis of U.S. Marine Corps General 
Officers Billet Requirements.'' It is dated March 20, 1996. The Kapos 
study concluded--this study that I just held up--that the Marine Corps 
needed--get this. This study recommended 37-to-95 more generals to fill 
key positions. I suppose I ought to look at that 37 to 95 and say to 
myself, ``Well, heavens. If they are only going to suggest 12 more, we 
ought to be happy, and just sit down and shut up.'' But the Kapos study 
did not look at the war-fighting requirements. That is very basic to 
why I think you had better be careful when you quote from this study. 
It did not look at force structure. It had one goal--fill those big, 
fat headquarter jobs sitting out there. The question was not in this 
study: How many generals do we need? Instead it was: How many positions 
do we fill? In no way did this Kapos study address the threat. It did 
not look at future force requirements or the need to downsize. This was 
a study about how to take and hold important bureaucratic real estate--
pure and simple. That is the engine driving the mushrooming 
headquarters problem that is so much of a concern to General Sheehan of 
the Atlantic Command.
  As a force shrinks, generals are flocking to the headquarters. That 
is my response to the second argument. The first one was the Goldwater-
Nichols rationale.
  The second is what is stated in the U.S. Senate Armed Services 
Committee report saying that these are not needed for war-fighting 
capability, and that is opposite what the Marine Corps said in this 
document that I put in the Record, where they want these 14 Marine 
generals, that that is for war fighting.
  It also sounds like the Marines want to be top-heavy with rank like 
the

[[Page S7965]]

other services. As I said, the other services are top-heavy. The 
Marines, from the standpoint of general to marine ratio, is a lot more 
efficient and effective. It's less top-heavy but if this goes through, 
then that means that the Marine Corps will be chubby with general 
officers the same way the Navy is chubby with admirals at a time of the 
force is shrinking. I suppose the Marines feel like they have been 
shortchanged.
  The other services have far more generals. They probably want a place 
at the negotiating table in the Pentagon, too. The Army has 291 
generals, or 1 general for every 1,748 soldiers. The Navy has 218 
admirals, or 1 admiral for every 1,994 sailors. The Air Force has 274, 
1 general for every 1,461 airmen. The Marine Corps, 68 generals, or 1 
for every 2,568 Marines. Big is good. Small is bad. The Air Force is 
the smallest, or the fattest. The Marine Corps is the leanest. But we 
do not fix this problem by making the Marine Corps chubby like the 
Navy, for example. But that is what happens if we give the Marine Corps 
12 additional generals. We fix this problem by making other services 
lean like the Marine Corps.
  In other words, I am suggesting that, at a time when the Secretary of 
Defense is saying that our primary responsibility is improvement and 
modernization of our capability, we ought to be very cautious about 
wasting money on administrative overhead. The Marine Corps used to be 
really lean and mean.
  You will see here, at the height of World War II, there were 485,000 
marines, 72 generals. The 72 generals is about the same as today, 68 to 
be exact. But the Marine Corps was three times bigger back then--1 
general for every 6,838 marines.
  Clearly, the other services are top-heavy compared to the Marines. 
You do not balance the load by making the Marine Corps top-heavy like 
the other services. You fix it by making the others less top-heavy, by 
reducing the number of generals. You fix it by giving them the right 
number of generals, a number that matches force structure.

  Lastly, the proponents for more Marine generals suggest that 
technology creates a need for more generals. That is possible. But the 
reverse is also possible. Technology could reduce the need for so many 
generals and admirals.
  When it comes to technology, you ought to take, for instance, CCCI. 
That stands for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence. 
Billions of dollars are going to be spent for CCCI. That technology 
gives the top generals and admirals the capability to run the battle 
from the Pentagon. It gives them the ability to communicate directly 
down to the smallest units operating anywhere in the world. Just read 
Colin Powell's book ``My American Journey,'' and you can see how he did 
it. He just by-passed all the redundant service headquarters in 
between.
  So CCCI could reduce the need for having so many generals forward 
deployed with the infantry battalions.
  So I do not understand the need for more Marine Corps generals when 
the Marine Corps is downsizing. The number of generals should be 
decreased as the Marine Corps gets smaller.
  The request for more generals reminds me of the recent words of 
Marine Corps Gen. John Sheehan, Atlantic Command. I quote him 
extensively on June 18 in my case to freeze the defense infrastructure 
costs. General Sheehan argues that ``Headquarters should not be growing 
as the force shrinks.''
  Continuing to quote, ``The growth in headquarter staff jobs is 
threatening the military's war-fighting capabilities.''
  So I think General Sheehan from inside the Marines hits the nail on 
the head. He has identified the root cause of the problem. He helps me 
understand why the Department of Defense cannot cut infrastructure 
costs. The growth in headquarter staff is being driven by one powerful 
force--excess generals and admirals searching for a mission. Each 
senior officer needs a place to call a home and to hoist a flag. Every 
senior officer needs a command, a headquarters, a base, a staff, or a 
large department of some kind somewhere someplace. Each new general 
funded in this bill will need some new piece of real estate.
  All of this makes me think that more Marine generals now is not a 
good idea. Responding instead, as the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Perry, 
says, modernization is our greatest need.
  So the amendment that I am going to offer this afternoon would put a 
lid on the number of Marine generals at 68 where it is today, not 
making a decision for the authorization committee, as the distinguished 
members of the authorization committee are saying that I am impinging 
upon their decision. You go ahead and make whatever decision you want. 
But should we spend money on 12 more Marine generals when the force 
structure has shrunk by 27,000? Or should that money instead be spent 
on modernization, as the Secretary of Defense says? It seems to me that 
is where it belongs.

  I am going to yield the floor. I still have some other pieces of 
supporting information and documentation I want to put in the Record, 
and I ask to do that.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 4453

   (Purpose: To provide $150,000,000 for defending the United States 
    against weapons of mass destruction, and to provide offsetting 
               reductions in other appropriation amounts)

  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, as I understand it, there is no amendment 
pending at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, if it is satisfactory with the Senator from 
Alaska, the chairman of the committee and manager of the bill, I will 
present an amendment at this time, but I would like to make sure it is 
satisfactory to him.
  Mr. STEVENS. We are prepared for the Senator's amendment and welcome 
it.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. President, this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Lugar, 
Senator Domenici, Senator Warner, Senator Harkin, and others, is filed 
at the desk as amendment No. 4453, so I call up the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for himself, Mr. 
     Lugar, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4453.

  Mr. NUNN. 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, insert:
       Sec.  . In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in this 
     act, $150,000,000 is appropriated for defense against weapons 
     of mass destruction, including domestic preparedness, 
     interdiction of weapons of mass destruction and related 
     materials, control and disposition of weapons of mass 
     destruction and related materials threatening the United 
     States, coordination of policy and countermeasures against 
     proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and 
     miscellaneous related programs, projects, and activities as 
     authorized by law: Provided, That the total amount available 
     under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' for the Joint Technology Insertion 
     Program shall be $2,523,000: Provided further, That the total 
     amount appropriated under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' is hereby 
     reduced by $12,000,000: Provided further, That the total 
     amount appropriated under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' is hereby reduced by 
     $138,000,000.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that minority staff 
members on the Armed Services Committee and two congressional fellows--
and I send a list to the desk--be accorded privileges of the floor 
during the Senate's consideration of votes relating to the Department 
of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list is as follows:


                         minority staff members

       Christine E. Cowart.
       Richard D. DeBobes.
       Andrew S. Effron.
       Andrew B. Fulford.
       Daniel B. Ginsberg.
       Mickie Jan Gordon.
       Creighton Greene.
       Patrick T. Henry.
       William E. Hoehn, Jr.
       Jennifer A. Lambert.
       Michael McCord.

[[Page S7966]]

       Frank Norton, Jr.
       Arnold L. Punaro.
       Julie K. Rief.
       James R. Thompson III.


                         congressional fellows

       Maurice B. Hutchinson.
       DeNeige V. Watson.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the amendment that is now the pending 
business provides funding for Defense Department activities authorized 
by the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act which was 
accepted by a 96-to-0 vote 2 weeks ago in this Chamber. That program 
deals with one of the most urgent national security problems America 
faces today, and this amendment funds the DOD part of that 
authorization. We have worked very carefully and constructively with 
the appropriations staff, our friends from Alaska and Hawaii, Senator 
Stevens and Senator Inouye. They have both been very strong supporters 
of this overall initiative, and they have been very cooperative in 
working with us. We did not have the authorization bill drafted in time 
to get that to the appropriators for their consideration in their 
normal markup activities. Therefore, we have this amendment in the 
Chamber today.
  This amendment, as I have said, deals with one of the most urgent 
national security problems facing America today. I have just come from 
a press conference with Bob Ellsworth and General Goodpaster and 
others, Dr. Rita Hauser, where they have spent a number of months with 
a very distinguished panel, including the Senator from Arizona, Mr. 
McCain; the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham; Congressman Pat Roberts; 
Brent Scowcroft; and others.
  That report, which sets forth America's vital interests and 
distinguishes those vital interests from extremely important interests 
and distinguishes both of those categories from less important 
interests, makes an enormous contribution to the dialog we should have 
in this country about what is truly in the vital interests of America.
  By the term ``vital,'' I mean interests that are so strong and have 
so much effect on the American people, their security and their well-
being that we are willing to fight if necessary and send our young men 
and women to war if necessary to protect those interests.
  It is very clear in reading that report that one of the top vital 
interests of the United States is to prevent this country from being 
the victim of attacks with weapons of mass destruction from terrorist 
groups and, in order to do that, to do everything we can possibly do to 
get ready for that and to deter it and prevent it by stopping these 
weapons at the source before they get to this country and, if they do 
get here, God forbid, doing something about it and being prepared to 
deal with it.
  This threat of attack on American cities and towns by terrorists, 
malcontents, or representatives of hostile powers using radiological, 
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, in my view, is a top and 
vital national security interest of this country.
  This threat is very different from the threat of nuclear annihilation 
with which our Nation and the world dealt in the cold war after World 
War II. During the cold war, both we and the Soviet Union recognized 
that either side could destroy the other within a matter of hours but 
only at the price of its own destruction.
  Today, this kind of cataclysmic threat is greatly reduced, but 
tragically the end of the cold war has not brought peace and stability. 
As a matter of fact, I think we can describe the period of the cold war 
as being one where we had very high risks because of the likelihood of 
escalation, and escalation would mean the use of weapons of mass 
destruction when two superpowers confront each other all over the 
globe. But during that period of high risk we also had high stability 
because both superpowers understood the consequence of getting into a 
nuclear war and therefore did everything they could to prevent it, 
including controlling clients and allies so that we would not have wars 
that could escalate involving the two superpowers.

  We have moved into another era now. We are in a period of much lower 
risk, but because we do not have those superpowers contending and 
constraining, we are in a period of lower stability, lower risk but 
lower stability. Some of those States that we call rogue nations, 
fanatic groups, small disaffected groups, and subnational factions or 
movements that hold various grievances against the U.S. Government have 
increasing access to and knowledge about the construction of weapons of 
mass destruction. Individuals and groups are not likely to be deterred 
from using weapons of mass destruction by the classical threat of 
overwhelming retaliation. Most of them do not have a return address so 
we do not know where they are in many cases, let alone have a real fix 
on how to deter them. These groups are not deterred by the threat of a 
nuclear counterstrike, and a national missile defense system, no matter 
how capable, is irrelevant to them. These subnational groups and 
terrorist groups are the primary focus of our threat today.
  Mr. President, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held a 
series of hearings over the last year, the subcommittee chaired by 
Senator Roth. I have chaired it in the past and am now the ranking 
Democrat member on it. We had hearings, a whole series of hearings over 
the last year. Senator Lugar has had hearings in the Foreign Relations 
Committee, and the hearings have been about the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction. At those hearings, we heard from 
representatives of the intelligence and law enforcement communities, 
the Defense Department, private industry, State and local governments, 
academia and foreign officials. These witnesses described the threat 
that we cannot ignore and which we are, without any doubt, unprepared 
to handle. CIA Director John Deutch, for one, candidly observed, ``We 
have been lucky so far.''
  The release of deadly sarin gas in the Tokyo subway was a warning 
bell for America. Prior to those attacks in Japan, the sect that 
carried out those attacks was unknown to United States intelligence and 
poorly monitored by Japanese authorities.
  We received a louder warning bell in the World Trade Center bombing 
in New York. It was here in the United States, not half a world away. 
The trial judge at the sentencing of those responsible for the New York 
Trade Center bombing pointed out that the killers in that case had 
access to chemicals to make lethal cyanide gas. According to this trial 
judge, they probably put those chemicals into that bomb that exploded. 
Fortunately, the chemicals appeared to have been vaporized by the force 
of the blast. Otherwise, the smoke and fumes that were drawn into and 
up through the tower in New York would have been far, far more lethal.
  So according to this opinion by the trial judge, Mr. President, we 
have already had a major chemical attempt in this country.
  We had a third warning bell in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah 
Federal Building in Oklahoma City. This showed yet again the ease of 
access to simple, widely available commercial products that, when 
combined, can provide powerful explosives.
  This kind of knowledge can also give us the threat of chemical 
weapons. This knowledge and much more is available over the Internet 
today to millions and millions of people.
  Our purpose here today is not to frighten anyone, certainly not to 
frighten the American people. It is to persuade the Congress that we 
face a new and a very severe national security threat for which 
American Government at all levels--State, local and Federal--are at 
this stage woefully and inadequately prepared. We must begin now, 
today, to prepare for what surely threatens us already. To do this 
effectively we must take the expertise that has been built up over the 
years in both the Department of Defense and Department of Energy and 
make it available to Federal, State and local emergency preparedness 
and emergency response teams. There is much to do to prepare our State 
and local governments for this threat. Doing it will require leadership 
from the people who know about it and who have expertise in it, that is 
the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. There is simply 
no other practical source.

  In the authorization bill we make it clear we hope to move this 
function over a period of time to the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency or

[[Page S7967]]

other appropriate agencies, but today we have no choice. If we are 
going to deal with this problem, it has to be dealt with by people who 
have the training and equipment and know-how and expertise, and that is 
the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense.
  The time to do this is now, not after we suffer a great tragedy. Like 
many of my colleagues, I believe there is a high likelihood that a 
chemical or biological incident will take place on American soil in the 
next several years. I hope and pray that does not happen. But we do not 
want to be in a posture of demanding to know why were we not prepared.
  This training and equipment function is the heart of the act, but it 
is not the whole act. Other parts are designed to beef up our 
capability to detect and interdict weapons of mass destruction and 
their components before they reach the United States. In addition, the 
authorization act allocates some funds for expansion and continuation 
of the original Nunn-Lugar concept through very important high-priority 
programs run both by the Department of Energy and by the Department of 
Defense.
  Finally, the act establishes a coordinator in the office of the 
President of the United States, to address serious deficiencies in the 
coordination of activities across the many Federal, State and local 
agencies who have some responsibility for portions of the overall 
program.
  The amendment I propose today, with my colleague and partner, Senator 
Lugar, and Senator Domenici, provides funds for the portions of this 
act that are conducted by the Department of Defense. It is certainly my 
hope the Department of Energy funding will be in the appropriate 
appropriation bill when it comes forward. Specifically, these 
activities include the training of local first responders on dealing 
with a chemical or biological terrorist incident; providing assistance 
to the U.S. Customs Service and customs services in the former Soviet 
Union, Baltics, and Eastern Europe in interdicting such materials; 
stepping up research and development efforts--and this is enormously 
important--in developing technologies that can detect chemical and 
biological weapons and materials; and bolstering programs in the 
original Nunn-Lugar program that are designed to stop these materials 
at their source, which is by far the best way and most efficient way 
and the safest way to protect our own country and prevent the use of 
such materials here in America.
  Mr. President, when I use the term ``first providers,'' I am talking 
primarily about firemen, policemen and health officials who would rush 
to the scene and, in virtually every exercise we have had, the second 
tier fatalities have come in these categories, people who rush to the 
scene to help the victims and end up being victims themselves because 
they are not equipped or trained to deal with this kind of threat.

  This amendment is fully offset in achievable savings from various 
Department of Defense accounts. The total here is $150 million, which 
is completely offset so this does not increase the bill in terms of 
total amount. I am convinced we must address this issue before the 
unthinkable happens in this country.
  Can we afford to dismiss the possibility that another World Trade 
Center or Oklahoma City bombing could involve chemicals, biological 
weapons, or radioactive materials? If we do ignore this threat, we do 
so at our own great peril. The trends are clear. More nations and 
groups are exploiting the increased availability of information, 
technology and materials to acquire mass destruction or mass terror 
capabilities. There is no reason to believe that they are not willing 
to use them. I have heard too many experts, whose opinions and 
credentials I respect who have vast experience in this area, tell me it 
is not a question of if, but only of when.
  I believe this legislation, while only a beginning, responds to a 
very urgent national security concern of our Nation and I believe it is 
a strong beginning. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I see my colleague and friend on the floor, the Senator from Indiana, 
so I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield just one moment? Would he be 
interested in a time agreement on this amendment?
  Mr. NUNN. I would say, we can enter into a time agreement very 
easily. I think we could also simply make a couple of more speeches and 
have a vote or order a vote and stack the vote, whenever the Senator 
from Alaska would like to do so.
  Mr. STEVENS. We are prepared to accept the amendment without a vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I would like to consult and talk with the Senator from 
Indiana on that, but I appreciate the Senator's expression.
  Mr. STEVENS. Could we agree to another 20 minutes on this amendment?
  Mr. NUNN. I have concluded my remarks. I think the Senator from 
Indiana indicates that will be acceptable to him.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a vote 
on this amendment--we will not make a motion to table it--if desired by 
the sponsors, at no later than 4:15 today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I will withhold that request for a minute.
  Mr. NUNN. Just reserving the right to object, whatever the Senator 
wants to do on a rollcall vote will be fine. I would like to have a 
rollcall vote but I will consult with him on that. But in terms of the 
order, if the Senator prefers to order this at some later time and 
stack it with some other amendment if we do have a rollcall, that is 
fine with the authors.
  Mr. STEVENS. We are using rollcall votes, when we do have them, to 
sort of flush out other amendments, so I would be pleased to have a 
vote or not have a vote but we will discuss it and I will withhold the 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, prior to the Fourth of July recess, the 
Senate passed an amendment to the DOD authorization bill offered by 
Senators Nunn and Domenici and myself that was entitled the ``Defense 
Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996.'' The vote on that 
amendment was 96 to 0.
  Last week, the Senate voted final passage of the Defense 
authorization bill, that contained our amendment.
  The amendment we are offering to the DOD appropriations bill is 
designed to appropriate the resources to implement the programs 
outlined in our amendment to the DOD authorization bill, and to provide 
offsetting reductions in other appropriation amounts.
  To refresh the memories of my colleagues, our amendment to the 
authorizing legislation dealt with one of the most urgent national 
security problems America faces. That is, the threat of attack on 
American cities and towns by terrorists or representatives of hostile 
powers using radiological, chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
  The current state of our domestic readiness to deal with these kind 
of attacks is woefully inadequate. Our amendment sought to begin today 
to prepare for what surely threatens us already.
  There were three basic elements or components to our amendment to the 
DOD authorization bill. The first component stemmed from the 
recognition that the United States cannot afford to rely on a policy of 
prevention and deterrence alone, and therefore must prudently move 
forward with mechanisms to enhance preparedness domestically not only 
for nuclear but chemical and biological incidents as well.
  Our hearings over the past year demonstrated that the United States 
is woefully unprepared for domestic terrorist incidents involving 
weapons of mass destruction. Although recent Presidential decision 
directives address the coordination of both crisis and consequence 
management of a WMD incident, the Federal Government has done too 
little to prepare for a nuclear threat or nuclear detonation on 
American soil, and even less for a biological or chemical threat or 
incident.
  This is particularly true with regard to the training and equipping 
of the local first responders--the firemen, police, emergency 
management teams, and medical personnel who will be on the frontlines 
if deterrence and prevention of such incidents fail. Our amendment sets 
forth several common-sense measures that could greatly improve

[[Page S7968]]

our readiness to cope with a domestic incident involving weapons of 
mass destruction.
  Almost all of the expertise in defending against and acting in 
response to such chemical and biological threats and their execution 
resides in the Department of Defense which has worked to protect our 
Armed Forces against chemical and biological attack. It is our belief 
that this expertise must be utilized and can be utilized without 
infringing on DOD's major missions or on our civil liberties.
  The second component addressed the supply side of these materials, 
weapons, and know-how in the states of the former Soviet Union and 
elsewhere. Building on our prior Nunn-Lugar/CTR experience, and 
recognizing that it is far more effective, and less expensive, to 
prevent proliferation in the first place than to face such weapons on 
the battlefield or the school playground, our amendment included 
countermeasures intended to firm up border and export controls, 
measures to promote and support counterproliferation research and 
development, and enhanced efforts to prevent the brain-drain of lethal 
know-how to rogue states and terrorist groups.
  We seek to capitalize on the progress achieved in dismantling nuclear 
weapons of the former Soviet states and in preventing the flight of 
weapons scientists over the past 5 years and to expand the core mission 
of the program so as to address strategically the emerging threats that 
compromise our domestic security. The resources that will be required 
to implement programs proposed in the amendment are not intended to 
supplant, but rather to supplement, current Nunn-Lugar funding levels.
  In addition to enhanced efforts to secure the weapons and materials 
of mass destruction, we must recognize that the combination of 
organized crime, porous borders, severe economic dislocation, and 
corruption in the states of the former Soviet Union has greatly 
increased the risk that lethal materials of mass destruction as well as 
the know-how for producing them can pass rather easily through the 
borders of the former Soviet Union. While much of the risk still 
resides in the four nuclear states of the former Soviet Union, there is 
also great risk in the states of the southern tier and the Caucasus. 
This region shares common borders with nations in the Middle East and 
poses a substantial smuggling threat.
  Although Nunn-Lugar programs have begun to offer training and 
equipment to establish controls on borders and exports throughout the 
former Soviet Union, much more needs to be done.

  The last and major component of our amendment to the Department of 
Defense authorization bill stemmed from the recognition much of the 
current effort to deal with the NBC threat crosscuts numerous Federal 
departments and agencies and highlights the need for the creation of a 
national coordinator for nonproliferation and counterproliferation 
policy in order to provide a more strategic and coordinated vision and 
response.
  This portion of our amendment addressed three serious deficiencies in 
planning for contingencies at home occasioned by the threats posed by 
weapons of mass destruction. First is the lack of coordination of 
activities across the many Federal agencies who have some 
responsibility for some portions of the overall problem. Second is the 
lack of coordination of Federal agencies and activities with those of 
the States and local governments who will be the first to bear the 
brunt of any attacks.
  Third, is the lack of national security funding in many of the 
Federal agencies whose actions must ultimately be integrated with those 
of the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.
  To support a comprehensive approach to nonproliferation, our 
amendment provided that a national coordinator should chair a new 
Committee on Proliferation, Crime, and Terrorism, to be established 
within the National Security Council. That committee should include the 
Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, the Attorney General, the 
Director for Central Intelligence, and other department and agency 
heads the President deems necessary. This committee within the National 
Security Council should serve as the focal point for all government 
nonproliferation, counterproliferation, law enforcement, intelligence, 
counterterrorism, and other efforts to combat threats to the United 
States posed by weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. President, our colleagues in the Senate gave overwhelming support 
last month to our amendment by a vote of 96 to 0.
  This amendment to the Department of Defense appropriations bill 
provides the resources to carry out the critically important programs 
established in our amendment to the authorization bill.
  We hope for an equally overwhelming vote in support of this amendment 
to fully fund these programs.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues, Senators Nunn, 
Lugar, and Domenici, for developing this amendment which is a good 
first step in addressing the principal security threat facing the 
citizens of the United States today. I am pleased to join them in 
sponsoring this important antiterrorism proposal. I have always been in 
favor of the wise use of taxpayers' funds and this amendment meets that 
test. We have to be prepared to combat terrorism.
  Currently we have precious few means to deal with the threat of a 
terrorist attack of any kind, let alone nuclear, chemical, or 
biological terrorism. This amendment focuses on that vacuum.
  Events from Oklahoma City to Tokyo show that there is a major 
security risk in the ordinary--a rental truck or a subway. Training 
local emergency officials to recognize the signs of weapons of mass 
destruction in these mundane circumstances will help prevent these 
insidious attacks in the first place. Further training will allow local 
officials to ameliorate the impact should such a tragedy occur.
  Mr. President, this is the right amendment at the right time for the 
people of Iowa and the United States. If my colleagues care about 
protecting Americans on American soil, I urge them to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we concur in the statements made by the 
Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Indiana. The Senator from 
Hawaii and I support the amendment. We are prepared to either accept it 
or to have a rollcall vote. What is the desire of the Senator from 
Georgia?
  Mr. NUNN. I would like to have a rollcall vote, if that is 
satisfactory with the floor managers, but I will do it at whatever time 
is convenient.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall 
vote on this amendment take place at 4:15 and not be subject to second-
degree amendments; that the rollcall start at 4:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. STEVENS. I withhold that.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, do we need the yeas and nays on the 
amendment? I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4885

 (Purpose: To provide $3,000,000 for the Operational Field Assessment 
                                Program)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Heflin, 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 Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Heflin, for 
     himself, and Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 4885.

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

       On page 31, line 6, strike out ``1998.'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``1998: Provided, That of the funds appropriated in 
     this paragraph, $3,000,000 is available for the Operational 
     Field Assessment Program.''.

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the

[[Page S7969]]

Defense appropriations bill to enable the Department of Defense to 
initiate a program called Operational Field Assessments. The 
warfighter, as a result of lessons learned from Desert Storm, Desert 
Shield, and Bosnia, needs this quicker way of evaluating joint tactics, 
doctrine and procedures.
  The Operational Field Assessment is a nontraditional, field executed 
evaluation that pits the warfighter, that is the pilot, ship driver, or 
tank commander, against multiple threat hardware pieces, operated with 
changeable technical parameters, as would be encountered in a specific 
unified command's combat environment. The requirements to be satisfied 
and the scenarios to be executed are driven primarily, by a command 
intelligence element, working in concert with the command's operations 
personnel. It is patterned after the threat, conducted with a ``human-
in-the-loop'' approach, and has no preconceived outcomes. The object is 
to learn from the experience.
  The Operational Field Assessment can be conducted on a large scale 
with multiple weapons and complex scenarios, or on a small scale with a 
few weapons and simple scenarios as required by the command. It can be 
executed jointly or in a combined environment with our allies. It 
involves a host of expert organizations; ranging from the various 
Scientific and Technical Intelligence Centers, owners of foreign 
material hardware, test ranges, research and development entities, and 
the services, to name a few. The DOT&E has assumed OSD advocacy for the 
OFA because the critical experience and expertise necessary to plan, 
execute, and evaluate the results of joint operational field 
assessments resides primarily in the DOT&E Office. The OFA program will 
also be invaluable in improving the future acquisition oversight of 
joint OT&E. The Director, OT&E, has created a MOU with Defense 
Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National 
Reconnaissance Office to assist in support of this program. It is a new 
approach to provide our warfighters with valuable, needed, and usable 
intelligence information in an era when we must be smarter with our 
fiscal resources. Our warfighters need it and I fully support it. Due 
to the urgent requirement of this program, I urge my colleagues to 
fully support this amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment earmarks funds for the 
Operational Field Assessment Program. It is to provide our commanders 
an innovative, flexible and timely response in the innovation of 
solutions to war-fighting identified deficiencies.
  This has been cleared by both sides, Mr. President.
  Mr. STEVENS. We support the amendment, Mr. President, and I ask for 
the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4885) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4886

  (Purpose: To set aside $3,000,000 for acceleration of a program to 
 develop thermally stable jet fuels using chemicals derived from coal)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the 
desk on behalf of Senator Santorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Santorum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4886.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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 at the end insert 
     ``: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, $3,000,000 shall be available for acceleration of a 
     program to develop thermally stable jet fuels using chemicals 
     derived from coal''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this funds an item that is specifically 
in the authorization bill concerning coal research. It has been 
cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4886) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4451

 (Purpose: To set aside $20,000,000 for payment to certain Vietnamese 
           commandos captured and interned by North Vietnam)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Kerry and McCain, I 
ask for the immediate consideration of amendment No. 4451.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Kerry, for 
     himself, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 4451.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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. Of the total amount appropriated under title II, 
     $20,000,000 shall be available subject to authorization, 
     until expended, for payments to Vietnamese commandos captured 
     and incarcerated by North Vietnam after having entered the 
     Democratic Republic of Vietnam pursuant to operations under a 
     Vietnam era operation plan known as ``OPLAN 34A'', or its 
     predecessor, and to Vietnamese operatives captured and 
     incarcerated by North Vietnamese forces while participating 
     in operations in Laos or along the Lao-Vietnamese border 
     pursuant to ``OPLAN 35'', who died in captivity or who 
     remained in captivity after 1973, and who have not received 
     payment from the United States for the period spent in 
     captivity.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment appropriates $20 million 
for payments to Vietnamese commandos who were captured and incarcerated 
by North Vietnamese forces while they were engaged in covert activities 
pursuant to United States operations.
  These operations were joint United States-South Vietnamese 
intelligence-gathering operations. And approximately 500 Vietnamese 
operatives, some civilians, some members of the Army, were recruited by 
the Government of South Vietnam. And we provided training and funding, 
including salaries, allowances, bonuses and death benefits. The 
majority of these operatives were captured. They were tried for treason 
by the north, and imprisoned in North Vietnam until the 1980's.
  Declassified Department of Defense documents suggest that the Defense 
Department systematically wrote off the commandos known to be in 
captivity as dead in order to avoid paying monthly salaries. The death 
benefits were paid to the next of kin. Many of the commandos spent 20 
years or more in prison. This amendment would provide the funds to 
repay each commando a lump sum of $40,000. This amendment has been 
cleared by the managers of this measure. It has the approval of the 
administration.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment, as I understand it, is 
cosponsored by Senator Kerrey and Senator McCain, two of our Members 
who should know more about this subject than anyone else. I am pleased 
to support it, but I point out it is limited. It is limited to the 
authorization. I do not think it ought to be expanded beyond the scope 
as defined in the original authorization. I urge the adoption of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4451) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. 4887

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment for the 
Senator from Utah, [Mr. Bennett].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for Mr. Bennett, 
     proposes amendment numbered 4887.
       On page 29, line 20, strike ``Forces'' and insert in lieu 
     therefore ``Forces: Provided further, That of the funds 
     available under this

[[Page S7970]]

     heading, $1,000,000 is available for evaluation of a non-
     developmental Doppler sonar velocity log''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is the amendment of the Senator from 
Utah. It seems to be very much in order as far as we are concerned. It 
is for an investigation of an entirely new concept. I believe the 
Senator from Hawaii has also cleared this.
  Mr. INOUYE. We have no objection.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4887) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. 4888

(Purpose: To set aside $10,000,000 for independent scientific research 
on possible causal relationships between gulf war service and gulf war 
                               syndrome)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, I send to the 
desk an amendment 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. Byrd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4888.

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

       On page 33, line 2, before the period at the end insert: 
     ``: Provided, further, That of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading, $10,000,000 shall be available for scientific 
     research to be carried out by entities independent of the 
     Federal Government on possible causal relationships between 
     the complex of illnesses and symptoms commonly known as 
     ``Gulf War syndrome'' and the possible exposures of members 
     of the Armed Forces to chemical warfare agents or other 
     hazardous materials during service on active duty as a member 
     of the Armed Forces in the Southwest Asia theater of 
     operations during the Persian Gulf War''.

                         Persian Gulf Syndrome

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering will 
designate $10 million from within the funds allocated to the Defense 
Health Program to investigate the possible links between exposure to 
chemical warfare agents and what has come to be called ``Gulf War 
Syndrome.'' I understand that the amendment has been cleared by the 
managers of the bill, and I thank them for their assistance. On June 
21, 1996, the Department of Defense announced that between 300 and 400 
U.S. soldiers may have been exposed to the chemical warfare agents 
sarin and mustard gas when they destroyed an Iraqi ammunition storage 
facility in March, 1991. The Department of Defense further announced 
that other events and locations would be examined to determine whether 
or not additional military personnel were exposed to chemical warfare 
agents. Up to this point, the Department of Defense had maintained that 
no personnel were exposed to chemical warfare agents, so no scientific 
research on the link between the soldier's illnesses and these agents 
had been conducted. My amendment would remedy that situation by 
providing $10 million for badly needed independent scientific research 
on this topic.
  Many soldiers have maintained that their illnesses resulted from 
their wartime service in the Gulf, whether from chemical warfare agents 
or from other hazardous exposures. Some of these soldiers suffer an 
additional, tragic, problem. Their children born after the war have 
birth defects or catastrophic illnesses that these soldiers believe are 
the result of their wartime exposures. No independent scientific 
research has been conducted on this link, although medical literature 
suggests that chemical warfare agents are teratogens. That is, they are 
believed to cause birth defects and other problems in children of 
exposure victims, according to the Institute of Medicine and the 
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. In the Defense 
Authorization bill, I offered an amendment that would provide medical 
care for these children until scientific evidence determines whether 
this link is verified. So, I expect that the Department of Defense will 
move quickly to obligate these funds, and to include in the research an 
examination of the possible link between chemical warfare agent 
exposure and birth defects.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment provides $10 million within 
the funding available for defense health programs to research the gulf 
war syndrome. This measure has been authorized by the Senate, and it 
has been cleared by both sides.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is money earmarked within existing 
funds as was previously ordered by the authorization bill, and we 
believe it is in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4888) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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 believe it is in order now for us to 
proceed with the recorded vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 4453

  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator has 30 seconds before the vote. I ask the 
Senator, could I have 30 seconds?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I was not here when Senator Nunn and Senator Lugar 
spoke on this amendment. I have been part of preparing the amendment. 
It has more facets than that which we are talking about here. But I 
want to thank Senator Stevens. He attended a session where these ideas 
were thrashed around by some of America's experts and concerned people 
from the laboratories and various branches of the military.
  I wholeheartedly support this amendment. I hope the Senate will adopt 
it. It is obvious to most of us, who are looking around this world, 
that America's most serious security problem has changed dramatically, 
and it is now the threat of biological and chemical weapons of mass 
destruction. It will be very hard to contain them and locate them and 
to get a management scheme with high technology and science to find out 
more about them and to be able to defend ourselves, but I think this is 
a step in the right direction getting our communities prepared. I 
wholeheartedly support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the 
amendment No. 4453 offered by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn]. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 4453) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S7971]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield to the leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first, I want to thank the two managers to 
the bill. I have not had too many occasions in the last few days to 
congratulate Senators for really making good progress and doing a great 
job.
  The Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, as always, are 
really doing a good job in working through the amendments without our 
having to resort to a cloture motion. They have cleared out a number of 
amendments. A number have been accepted, and some we are voting on.
  I urge colleagues to continue working with the managers, and I 
believe we can get this done. The leadership is committed to getting 
the defense appropriations bill done today. If we continue to have good 
cooperation, we can get it done at a reasonable hour. I thank the 
Senators for what they have been doing, and I urge them to continue.

                          ____________________