Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 105 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)

[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.

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.

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.

____________________