[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 122 (Monday, September 9, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10027-S10036]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 
3230, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     3230) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for 
     military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
     military construction and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for 
     such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
     purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of July 30, 1996.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for debate on this conference report 
will be limited to 4 hours equally divided in the usual form, with 1 
hour under the control of the Senator from Louisiana.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 1997. This agreement continues the work we began last year 
to keep the Department of Defense on a steady course as it heads into 
the 21st century. The legislation sends a signal that we remain 
strongly committed to support our men and women in uniform through 
funding for modernization and training as well as for quality-of-life 
programs for our military and their families.
  This year, the Senate chaired the conference with the House. I am 
proud

[[Page S10028]]

to say that we developed a responsible agreement after less than 20 
working days. This agreement resulted from the bipartisan cooperation 
of House Members and Senators, Republicans and Democrats, working 
together on issues affecting our national security.
  During my tenure in the Senate and my nearly 40 years as a member of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have fought hard to ensure that 
the security of our Nation is an issue that unifies rather than divides 
us. The best national security policy is developed and implemented when 
we act in a bipartisan spirit. It is my sincere hope that we can make 
this an even stronger feature of the process we use to craft future 
national security legislation.
  The conference report recommends an increase of $11.2 billion above 
the President's budget request of $254 billion for fiscal year 1997. 
The funding level authorized for the new budget authority is $265.6 
billion, which is the same level approved by the full Senate on July 
10. This amount is still $7.4 billion below the inflation-adjusted 
fiscal year 1996 level of spending.

  To improve the quality of life of our military personnel and their 
families, the conference agreement includes a 3-percent pay raise for 
military members and a 4.6-percent increase in the basic allowance for 
quarters. The conference report also includes an increase of $850.0 
million above the administration's request for military construction 
funding. Approximately 60 percent of this increase is dedicated to 
quality of life programs, especially military housing.
  The conference agreement addresses some of the most serious 
modernization concerns we have identified, while maintaining a balance 
between current and future readiness.
  The agreement provides for an increase of approximately $900 million 
for ballistic missile defense programs. This increase will support 
aggressive developments for national missile defense, Navy Upper Tier, 
and the theater high-altitude area defense system.
  The conference report does not include any legislative provision 
concerning theater missile defense demarcation. During conference, the 
President's National Security Adviser informed the conferees that the 
administration had already concluded that the tentatively agreed-upon 
TMD demarcation agreement constitutes a substantive change to the ABM 
Treaty. Given that the Constitution and existing law require any 
substantive change to the ABM Treaty to be submitted to the Senate for 
advice and consent, the conferees agreed that additional legislation on 
this matter is not required.
  With regard to the ABM Treaty succession issue, the conference report 
also does not include any legislative provision. The statement of 
managers clearly expresses the view that any agreement to 
multilateralize the ABM Treaty would constitute a substantive change 
requiring Senate advice and consent. In order to avoid a confrontation 
over this issue that would lead to a veto of the Defense Authorization 
Act, the conferees agreed that this matter should be considered 
separately from the Defense Authorization Act.
  We addressed modernization shortfalls in this bill by including 
increases for sealift and airlift programs, and robust funding for the 
construction of new warships, such as the Seawolf submarine and the 
Arleigh Burke class destroyers. The conference contains a number of 
funding increases to bring advanced technologies to the battlefield and 
to support the increasing variety of missions our military men and 
women are being ordered to carry out around the world. We have 
authorized increases for additional JSTARS aircraft, greater numbers of 
critical night vision equipment, as well as providing funds to 
accelerate the development of the Army's Comanche helicopter and 
nonlethal weapons programs.

  Mr. President, I want again to express my appreciation to my 
colleagues, especially the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members, 
for working together to reach this responsible conference agreement so 
expeditiously. I note with sadness that this is the last authorization 
conference during which the committee will benefit from the friendship, 
knowledge, and wisdom of Senator Sam Nunn, Senator Bill Cohen, and 
Senator Jim Exon. Senator Cohen has been a leader in the cause of 
reforming the acquisition process and has managed the process of 
recapitalizing our Navy's fleet in a constrained fiscal environment. 
During his tenure on the committee, Senator Exon has been a dedicated 
advocate of a strong, affordable defense.
  Senator Nunn has worked tirelessly to help us put together 
legislation that reflects the broadest possible bipartisan consensus. I 
am personally grateful to him, and the entire Nation owes him a debt of 
gratitude for the work he has put in on this bill and the many other 
pieces of national security legislation in which he has played such a 
vital role over the years, including the landmark Goldwater-Nichols 
Reorganization Act of 1986.
  Mr. President, we would not have been able to complete work on this 
conference agreement had it not been for the ceaseless work of our 
majority and minority staffs. Our two staff directors, Les Brownlee and 
Arnold Punaro did an outstanding job directing the process and keeping 
our staffs focused on responsible outcomes.

  I ask unanimous consent that a list of the committee staff associated 
with this bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, finally, I want to express my 
appreciation to Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, the chairman and 
ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations, for their 
willingness to work with us in a spirit of unprecedented cooperation 
through our process this year. I believe that both of our committee's 
bills have benefitted from this relationship.
  With the attacks against Iraq this week, we are reminded again of the 
vital role our military is fulfilling around the world. Many of the 
Senators who have expressed concern about the funding levels in this 
bill have also gone on record in support of the President's recent 
actions in Iraq as well as his earlier decision to send our troops to 
Bosnia. These deployments are costly. They require continuing 
investments in weapons modernization, spare parts support, and training 
in order to ensure that our men and women in uniform are well led and 
can perform such operations efficiently and with a minimum of risk. As 
Senators consider their votes on this vital legislation, they should be 
mindful of our obligation to support the men and women in our Armed 
Forces and the need to maintain an adequate level of funding for these 
forces that we so frequently call upon to go into harm's way.
  It is my hope that this conference agreement will receive the 
resounding support of the Senate. The agreement is supported by a 
bipartisan consensus and represents a responsible and sustainable 
approach to national security. It sends the strongest signal to our men 
and women in uniform that we appreciate their daily sacrifices, and 
that we are committed to supporting their families and their mission 
into the next century.
  Mr. President, in closing, I would like to bring to the attention of 
my colleagues that President Clinton has already indicated in his radio 
address on Saturday that he intends to sign this legislation. I believe 
that this is a strong reflection of the bipartisan spirit which has 
characterized this bill from the very beginning.
  With that in mind, I believe all Senators should be able to vote for 
this bill, and I urge them to do so.

                               Exhibit 1


                ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE MAJORITY STAFF

       Les Brownlee, Staff Director, Charles S. Abell, Patricia L. 
     Banks, John R. Barnes, Lucia Monica Chavez, Christine Kelley 
     Cimko, Donald A. Deline, Marie Fabrizio Dickinson, Shawn H. 
     Edwards, Jonathan L. Etherton, Pamela L. Farrell, Cristina W. 
     Fiori, Larry J. Hoag, Melinda M. Koutsoumpas, Lawrence J. 
     Lanzillotta, and George W. Lauffer.
       Paul M. Longsworth, Stephen L. Madey, Jr., J. Reaves 
     McLeod, John H. Miller, Ann M. Mittermeyer, Bert K. Mizusawa, 
     Joseph G. Pallone, Cindy Pearson, Sharen E. Reaves, Steven C. 
     Saulnier, Cord A. Sterling, Eric H. Thoemmes, Roslyne D. 
     Turner, June Vaughan, Deasy Wagner, and Jennifer L. Wallace.


                ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE MINORITY STAFF

       Arnold L. Punaro, Staff Director for the Minority, 
     Christine E. Cowart, Richard D. DeBobes, Daniel Ginsberg, 
     Mickie Jan Gordon, Creighton Greene, Patrick T. Henry,

[[Page S10029]]

     William E. Hoehn, Jr., Maurice Hutchinson, Jennifer Lambert, 
     Peter K. Levine, David S. Lyles, Michael J. McCord, Frank 
     Norton, Jr., Julie K. Rief, Jay Thompson, DeNeige V. Watson.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I join Senator Thurmond in urging our 
colleagues to adopt this conference report on H.R. 3230, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. I also join him in 
commending the staff. Les Brownlee, George Lauffer, and Jon Etherton on 
the majority side have led a very capable majority staff. Arnold 
Punaro, David Lyles, and Andy Effron, now Judge Effron, did the same on 
our side. They have worked together in a splendid fashion.
  This truly is a bipartisan bill. As Senator Thurmond has said, 
President Clinton has indicated he plans to sign this bill, and that is 
a reflection that the bill is solid for national security. This also 
reflects the kind of leadership we saw this year under Senator 
Thurmond. He made sure this was a bill that did reflect not only his 
strong concern and continued commitment for a national security, but 
also a bill that could be signed into law.
  I commend him on his leadership, and I thank Senator Thurmond for his 
very thoughtful and kind remarks about my career in the Senate, 
particularly my involvement in the national security arena.
  I also would like to join Senator Thurmond in being one of those who 
can testify in the first person about the tremendous role that Senator 
Exon and Senator Cohen have played as members of this committee.
  Senator Cohen and I have joined in numerous national security matters 
over the years, including the creation of a special forces command, the 
builddown proposal, and moving away from MIRV'd warheads. I can think 
of numerous proposals that he and I jointly championed. He has been a 
stalwart of national security. He has made an outstanding record, not 
only in this area but in others. I certainly share the very strong 
statements made by Senator Thurmond in terms of praise for Senator 
Cohen.
  I also would like to add very loud applause for Senator Exon who has 
chaired the Strategic Subcommittee for a number of years. Every year 
when I was chairman, Senator Exon chaired the subcommittee. That is not 
only where the controversy was, that is where the money was.
  We had one matter after another that had to be handled, both in terms 
of strategic weapons and in terms of overall arms control concerns. 
Senator Exon has been a stalwart leader. He has been a person who could 
find a light of agreement and mold together a consensus in very 
difficult circumstances. He has been steadfast in his support for a 
strong and sensible national security. He has been my partner time and 
time again in crucial matters, and he will be sorely missed. Senator 
Exon also has been a leader and a champion of moving toward a balanced 
budget in his leadership on the Budget Committee. He will be missed in 
that area as well.
  Mr. President, this budget that we have before us increases the 
President's budget on national security, and it does so in a way that 
is going to boost the funds for procurement, research and development, 
and, as Senator Thurmond said, quality of life for our military forces. 
I think everyone should keep in mind, even with the substantial 
increase over President Clinton's budget, this budget remains a 
reduction from last year in real terms. When we hear over and over 
again ``the very large increases in the defense budget,'' those 
increases are relative to the proposals made by the Clinton 
administration but do not accurately reflect that the trend continues 
downward in national security.
  Many of these cuts that have taken place over the last 8 or 10 years 
were needed and necessary. This drawdown has been the most successful, 
in terms of personnel policy, we have ever had in the U.S. military 
after a major mission or, in this case, the end of the cold war. We 
have been able to maintain the quality and the qualifications of the 
men and women who serve in our military. This is a very difficult and 
challenging task, and none of us should diminish the importance of it. 
If we had not been able to accomplish this successful drawdown, we 
would be reading all sorts of horror stories about readiness and horror 
stories about our military being demoralized. We are not reading those 
stories because we have had a very successful drawdown.
  I think our committee and our counterparts in the House deserve some 
credit for this. We have come up with new, innovative ways to ease into 
this transition and to take care of the personnel, not only those that 
were leaving but those that are staying, and their families.
  I also think the leadership of Dr. Perry has been outstanding in this 
regard, and I believe the leadership of the services has been 
outstanding. The U.S. Army, in particular, has been able to manage a 
very, very substantial drawdown of forces and reduction in the size of 
the Army. The Army has moved forces from parts of the world back home 
in an unprecedented and very skillful way.
  Mr. President, the Senate passed this bill in early July. Under the 
leadership of Senator Thurmond, the House and Senate conferees 
completed a very difficult conference on this large and very important 
bill in 4 weeks. I congratulate Senator Thurmond for his leadership of 
this conference and the bipartisan manner in which it was conducted. He 
kept all of us in harness and told us we had to finish this conference 
before we left for the August recess. Without that leadership, without 
that push, we would not have this bill before us today.
  Again, I thank Senator Thurmond, not only for his work on this bill, 
but for his stalwart leadership on national security issues during the 
entire time I have been in the U.S. Senate. I thank him most of all for 
his friendship and for being a man of integrity and a man who 
absolutely places the security of our country above partisan interests 
and above parochial interests. I thank him for that. I think our Nation 
is, indeed, indebted to him for that kind of leadership. I am indebted 
to him for his personal friendship.
  I thank our House counterparts, Chairman Spence, who was determined 
to get a bill this year and who exercised leadership time and time 
again, along with my good friend, Congressman Ron Dellums, who is the 
ranking Democrat. They were determined to get a bill. They were 
determined to make changes and display flexibility where flexibility 
was absolutely required if we were going to see a bill signed into law. 
I commend them for their leadership, as well as all the House conferees 
and all of our Senate conferees for their cooperation in bringing this 
conference to a successful conclusion. I also would like to thank, as 
Senator Thurmond did, the chairman and ranking members of each of our 
subcommittees. These members played such a key role on the Senate 
committee in getting this legislation passed.

  Mr. President, this is the last defense authorization conference 
report of my Senate career. I want to express my deep appreciation to 
the staff of the Armed Services Committee, not only this year but over 
the years that I have served on the Committee. They have provided 
tremendous support during this conference and throughout this year: Les 
Brownlee, John Etherton, Arnold Punaro, David S. Lyles, and Andy 
Effron. I mention them again because without them this bill would 
simply not be possible. Arnold Punaro and all of the members of the 
minority staff have continued to provide the outstanding assistance to 
me and to other members on the Democratic side. This support has been 
their trademark for many years. More importantly, both Les Brownlee and 
Arnold Punaro have the confidence of the entire committee. They make 
contributions, as do their staffs, to the analysis and thinking of the 
committee members on both sides.
  Mr. President, Senator Thurmond has already summarized the major 
features of this conference report. I endorse those statements he has 
made, but I would emphasize a few others, which I think are very 
notable provisions in this conference report.
  I am pleased the House conferees agreed to the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici 
Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996, which the 
Senate

[[Page S10030]]

adopted unanimously, both in this bill and in the appropriations bill. 
This legislation is a critical step in addressing our Nation's ability 
to deal with the threats from the proliferation of chemical, 
biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons with special emphasis on 
combating domestic terrorism. I, too, thank Senators Stevens and Inouye 
for supporting this legislation, both on the floor and in conference in 
the appropriations bill. I also thank them for their splendid 
leadership in the national security arena.
  This legislation authorizes $201 billion for the Departments of 
Health, Human Services, and Energy to address the threat of 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This includes $65 million 
for the Defense Department to conduct a program to train, equip, and 
assist local first responders in dealing with incidents involving 
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and related materials. Within 
this $65 million, $10.5 million is specifically earmarked for DOD 
assistance to the Secretary of Health and Human Services in forming 
emergency medical response teams capable of dealing with the 
consequences of the use of these materials.
  A total of $30 million is authorized for DOD to provide equipment and 
assistance to the U.S. Customs Service and to help train custom 
services in the former Soviet Union, the Baltic States, and Eastern 
Europe in an effort to improve our ability to detect and interdict 
these materials before they can reach the hands of terrorists in the 
United States. Of course, a partnership between the United States and 
these other customs services is absolutely essential for our own 
security.
  An additional $27 million is provided to the Department of Defense 
and to the Department of Energy for efforts to research and develop 
improved detection technologies, which are badly needed. I will not go 
into detail, but that was one of the most important lessons learned at 
the Olympics in Atlanta. All elements of our law enforcement need to 
learn to detect more thoroughly, with a broader area and with more 
confidence, the presence of a chemical or biological weapon, if one is 
released. This area needs attention in the research field.
  Finally, this conference report authorizes additional funding to 
address the threat of proliferation, as we have done in the past, at 
its source. In addition to fully authorizing the administration's 
request of $327.9 million for the DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction 
Program, this legislation authorizes $37 million for DOD projects 
designed to destroy, dismantle, and improve controls over the former 
Soviet Union's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. DOE is being 
provided $40 million for its program in this area.

  I must commend our colleague, Senator Domenici, for his outstanding 
leadership in developing, implementing, following through, and 
providing the funding for this legislation.
  This legislation also calls for the creation of a senior level 
coordinator to improve the coordination among Federal departments and 
agencies dealing with the threat of proliferation, and to improve 
coordination between the Federal Government and State and local 
governments and emergency response agencies.
  Mr. President, the threat of attack on American cities and towns by 
terrorists, malcontents, or representatives of hostile powers using 
radiological, chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons is one of the 
most serious national security threats we face today. I put it right at 
the top of the list. Too many experts have said it is not a question of 
``if'' but only of ``when'' terrorists will use chemical, biological--
or even nuclear--weapons in the United States. The legislation in this 
conference report is a major step forward and will significantly 
improve our ability at the local level and State level and all over 
this country to deal with this threat--a threat which today we are 
clearly not prepared for. I anticipate that the National Guard, if they 
choose and if the administration moves in that direction, will be able 
to play a major role in this area.
  We have Guard forces in every community of any real size in America. 
Every Governor has Guard forces that are available if an emergency 
comes at on the State level. A number of these units are trained in the 
chemical and biological area. I think it is a natural fit because Guard 
forces are on the scene and also enjoy a great deal of confidence by 
our citizens. I would like to see, as one of the originators of this 
entire legislation, it move in the direction of the Guard.
  I am also pleased that the conferees agreed to the Senate provision 
giving the Secretary of Defense discretionary authority to waive some 
of the existing buy-America limitations for defense procurement. I 
joined Senator McCain in sponsoring this provision in committee and in 
conference. I commend Senator McCain for his leadership in this 
respect.
  Mr. President, this waiver authority is essential if we are to live 
up to our commitments to our allies to work for free and open 
competition for defense procurement. If we do not buy from them in a 
fair way, they are not going to buy from us. We enjoy an advantage on 
the sale of defense articles. It is a favorable part of our trade 
balance. This is a very important step for those who sell defense 
equipment to our allies.
  Two of the most difficult issues in this conference and in this whole 
bill, Mr. President, were the multilateralization of the ABM Treaty and 
the demarcation between theater missile defense systems and ABM 
systems.
  The House bill contained provisions on each of these issues which the 
administration vigorously opposed as infringements on the President's 
treaty-making powers under the Constitution. The Senate bill reported 
by the committee contained similar language, but both provisions were 
modified on the Senate floor. The administration was prepared to accept 
the two provisions in the bill that passed the Senate.
  Again this year, a majority of the conferees decided to drop all the 
provisions on these two issues, rather than accept the bipartisan 
provisions contained in the Senate bill. This same course was followed 
last year with respect to language on national missile defenses, with 
the end result that the Congress provided some $800 million for 
national missile defense for the current fiscal year without any 
guidance to the Department of Defense as to how to spend it.
  Mr. President, I commend the House conferees on their willingness to 
drop their language. I have never understood why the language adopted 
in the Senate, both last year and this year, was not acceptable.
  After removing all of the bill language regarding 
both multilateralization and theater missile defense demarcation this 
year, a majority of the conferees endorsed the statement of managers 
language on both issues. That, of course, is the right of the 
conferees. This statement of managers language was not endorsed by all 
of the conferees. In fact, some of my colleagues on the minority side 
of our committee decided not to sign the statement of managers 
accompanying the conference report, in large part because of their 
disagreement with this statement of managers language.

  While I signed the conference report and statement of managers 
because of my overall support for this bill, I want to make clear my 
concerns with the statement of managers language on both 
multilateralization of the ABM Treaty and on theater missile defense 
demarcation.
  Mr. President, it is unfortunate that Congress remains deeply divided 
on missile defense issues. We may have a debate on issues relating to 
missile defense in the next 2 or 3 weeks before we adjourn this 
session. For one thing, I think a debate would be healthy. I think this 
subject needs to be debated. I think it needs more understanding, both 
in the media and in the main body of the American people, as well as 
here in the Congress.
  We are in sort of a gridlock in the DOD's management of missile 
defense programs, which is not helpful for program execution. In each 
of the past 2 years, the Senate has reached a bipartisan consensus on 
missile defense language that has had overwhelming support, only to see 
this consensus language dropped from the final conference report. While 
the Senate seems to be able to develop, at least under pressure when 
required, a consensus, the House and Senate have not been able to see 
eye to eye on this issue.
  Mr. President, another difficult issue in this conference was whether 
to allow

[[Page S10031]]

increased privatization of depot-level maintenance currently performed 
by Government employees at DOD facilities. The Senate bill contained a 
series of provisions concerning DOD depot-level maintenance of 
equipment.
  Mr. President, I do not want to take too much time discussing this 
issue. I have a few more minutes, but if Senator Thurmond has anything 
he would like to say at this point or wants to interrupt me at any 
point, I welcome that.
  Mr. President, the House bill basically supported the so-called 60/40 
rule in current law, which requires that at least 60 percent of DOD's 
depot-level maintenance be performed in Government facilities. The 
statute, however, has been interpreted by the Air Force to exclude 
contractor logistics support from the definition of depot-level 
maintenance. While you have a 60/40 requirement in law, interpretation 
by the Air Force excludes contractor logistics support from the 
definition of depot level maintenance. Therefore, under current law, 
the Government could move away from the depots simply by reclassifying 
it as contractor logistics support.
  The Senate bill would have changed the 60/40 formula, giving the 
administration and DOD more flexibility, so that 50 percent of DOD's 
depot-level maintenance would be performed in Government depots, while 
the balance could be performed in the private sector. At the same time, 
the Senate bill would have created a common definition of depot 
maintenance for all the military services that would have included all 
depot maintenance, including contractor logistics support.
  The Senate bill would also have prohibited privatization of the depot 
maintenance work at Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases unless there 
was a competition open to all public and private sector competitors. We 
on the Senate side certainly are not opposed to Kelly and McClellan 
competing. We felt there should be a competition, not simply an 
assignment.
  After vigorous discussions in conference, the conferees determined 
that there were too many issues in dispute to permit development of a 
long-term solution to this question at this time. The House was 
insistent on sticking with the 60/40 rule, but it did not have the 
definitions which I think are important. As a result, the conferees 
dropped all the relevant provisions in both bills relating to depot 
maintenance and decided to retain current law. I believe this outcome 
is unfortunate. The issues have been the subject of a lot of debate and 
discussion in recent years. I think the Senate provisions were a good, 
long-term compromise that would have provided flexibility to put in 
place clear definitions and a well-defined policy that would have given 
greater predictability and stability for both DOD depots and private-
sector interests.

  Turning to the area of personnel policy, the House bill contained a 
provision that would have required the mandatory separation of HIV-
positive service members who have less than 15 years of service. Under 
the House provision, these individuals would have had to be separated 
within 2 months of their having been determined to be HIV positive.
  The Senate bill contained a provision that would have required the 
Secretary of Defense to prescribe uniform regulations concerning the 
retention of service members who cannot be deployed worldwide for 
medical reasons. These regulations would have not only applied to 
members affected by HIV but by all other diseases that may affect the 
ability for these personnel to be deployed.
  Under this provision, the policies governing the retention of service 
members who are nondeployable because of medical conditions like 
asthma, cancer, diabetes, and heart disease would be the same as those 
policies governing the retention of service members determined to be 
nondeployable because of their being HIV positive.
  Mr. President, I will not go into detail today, but the House 
provision would have imposed a very severe hardship on people found to 
have HIV and to their families. These are people who have gotten into 
this situation through no fault of their own. It would have been very 
unfair. There are very few people in this category. We can state that 
the conferees dropped the House provision, and the report includes no 
changes to current law. I think that is the right result.
  Mr. President, President Clinton indicated over the weekend that he 
would sign this bill, so this is the last defense authorization bill 
that I will have the privilege of voting on during my Senate career. I 
am glad about that. I did not want the bill to be vetoed, and I did not 
want an encore here. I am delighted we were able to finish this 
conference.
  This will be the last Defense authorization bill that I will have the 
privilege of voting on and working on. I joined the Armed Services 
Committee when I came to the Senate in 1973. It was one of the real 
reasons I ran for the Senate. I wanted to be on the Armed Services 
Committee, and I wanted to be involved in international security. I had 
it in my heart and mind. Being able to work with the men and women who 
serve our Nation on the Armed Services Committee has been one of the 
true highlights of my entire life and my Senate career. It has been the 
highlight of my tenure here in the Senate.
  Every year that I have been in the Senate this committee has brought 
a Defense authorization bill to the floor, and every year it has been 
signed into law. Occasionally, we had to have a bill vetoed first, but 
we have always managed to enact an authorization bill. I hope that will 
continue.
  Mr. President, the hallmark of the Armed Services Committee has 
always been a deep and unwavering commitment to the national security 
of the United States and particularly to the welfare of the men and 
women who so capably and bravely serve us. This service is not without 
sacrifice throughout this country and the world. The people in uniform 
are remarkable. This commitment has been completely bipartisan, and I 
am proud of the fact that over the years, with a few exceptions here 
and there, we have managed to conduct our business with a minimum of 
partisanship.
  It has been a real privilege for me and a great honor to serve on the 
committee under the leadership of some of the giants of the U.S. 
Senate. Of course, my predecessor, Richard Russell, was an outstanding 
chairman of this committee and the Appropriations Committee for many 
years. I followed his career before I came to the U.S. Senate. My great 
uncle, Carl Vinson, chaired the Naval Affairs Committee and then the 
House Armed Services Committee for many years during his 50 years of 
service in the House of Representatives. I have been deeply honored to 
serve with the giants, who have chaired and been ranking members of the 
Armed Services Committee. I am not going to try to name every one that 
I have served with because they have all been friends and colleagues.
  However, I have to list Senator John Stennis, a giant in the U.S. 
Senate; Senator Barry Goldwater, my partner in numerous legislative 
undertakings, as Senator Thurmond has said, particularly in the 
legislation known as the Goldwater-Nichols legislation; Senator John 
Tower, a colleague and very strong chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee; and, of course, now, my colleague and friend, Senator Strom 
Thurmond, who has been a great chairman and ranking member when he was 
in the minority of the Armed Services Committee. I must add that 
Senator Thurmond was a pillar of strength in his own service in the 
U.S. military. He was a stalwart leader during World War II. All of us 
who went to Normandy were able to recount that history and understand 
the remarkable role Senator Thurmond played there. Again, we are 
impressed and indebted to him for his service.
  I have to mention Senator ``Scoop'' Jackson, a man I admired deeply 
before I came to the U.S. Senate. I felt a great privilege in knowing 
and working with him, both in military and national security, foreign 
policy matters, as well as on the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations. I was his vice chairman, and while he was engaging in 
his run for Presidency in 1976, I was the acting chairman under his 
direction of that investigative subcommittee. I must mention Senator 
John Warner, who has been my partner on many different ventures 
involving military foreign policy matters. He served as a ranking 
minority member of the committee during my chairmanship. He has been a 
pillar of support for the men

[[Page S10032]]

and women in uniform and for our national security. I have thoroughly 
enjoyed my association with him. I have learned a tremendous amount 
from all of these Senators.

  I remember Senator Dewey Bartlett, now departed, Republican from 
Oklahoma. Senator Bartlett and I went to NATO in the mid-1970's and 
worked together on a NATO report which we think had some effect on 
strengthening our overall NATO positions. He was a very close friend of 
mine. He died a few years ago. Certainly, the recent book that has come 
out on Senator Bartlett is on my ``must read'' file. He was a wonderful 
Senator. I remember him with great fondness.
  Then there are Senators Cohen and Levin. I have already mentioned 
Senator Cohen and the remarkable role he played in all the things we 
have undertaken together. Senator Levin, Senator Exon, and I have 
worked together as partners on many, many, different matters. Senator 
Levin will be the chairman of this committee if the Democrats are in 
control next year and will be the ranking Democrat if the Republicans 
retain control. In either role, I am confident that he will continue 
his diligence and his dedication to the men and women in our military 
and to our Nation's security.
  Senator Bingaman has been a champion and our real leader in 
technology issues. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with him as well 
as every member of the committee. Senator Byrd as majority-minority 
leader, a member of this committee, and a leader in the Appropriations 
Committee has been one of my most greatest friends and has helped me 
every step of the way in everything I have undertaken on this committee 
and in the Senate.
  I will not try to name all the people, but Senator Kennedy has done a 
great job in his work. Senator Glenn and I have been great friends and 
have worked together on many different matters, including the 
deployment of our forces in Korea and helping to convince President 
Carter to change his mind on withdrawal of the forces from Korea in a 
critical time.
  Senator McCain is certainly not only a war hero but also a leader for 
national security. Senator Coats and Senator Kempthorne are newer 
members of the committee, but they both have done remarkable jobs. 
Senator Smith and others are going to be increasingly heard from on the 
Armed Services Committee in the years ahead.
  I leave with a great sense of feeling that the Armed Services 
Committee is going to be in strong hands on both sides of the aisle in 
the years ahead. I will follow these issues with a great deal of 
interest in the future. I am sure that I will continue to be involved 
in one way or another in national security issues. I leave the Senate 
with a great feeling of confidence that the men and women who serve in 
the military have stalwart champions of our national security policy 
and the quality of life for the people who serve our Nation so well.
  Mr. President, in closing, the Armed Services Committee has been 
fortunate to have the service of some extraordinarily talented and 
dedicated staff members during my service on the committee--staff 
directors and the staff who serve under them. I wish I could name 
everyone who served so well on this committee as a member of the staff. 
They all know of my deep admiration for them, and they all know that I 
relied on them every day that I have been in a leadership position on 
this committee.
  We have had staff directors like Ed Braswell, Frank Sullivan, Rhett 
Dawson, Jim Roche, Jim McGovern, Carl Smith, Pat Tucker, Dick Reynard, 
Les Brownlee, and, of course, Arnold Punaro, who has been my right arm 
on national security issues for over 20 years. Arnold and Les both have 
had outstanding military careers and have accorded themselves with 
great valor on the field of battle.
  Mr. President, these staff directors and those who serve with them 
are truly the unsung heroes of our American military forces. I will 
continue to be indebted to them.
  I am indebted to the current minority staff committee, who worked so 
hard on this bill and on countless other issues. In addition to Arnold 
Punaro, Andy Effron, and David Lyles. David, who is on the floor today, 
left the committee for a while and has come back. I hope he will be on 
the committee staff for a long time to come.
  Andy Effron left the committee last month to take a position on the 
bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Nobody will do 
a better job as a judge affecting our military forces than Andy Effron, 
and we all know that.
  Rick DeBobes is an outstanding lawyer and Navy captain who worked 
with Admiral Crowe. He has been my right arm on numerous foreign policy 
issues and is always available to the majority leader and minority 
leader in working out difficult foreign policy matters on behalf of 
this committee.
  I thank Creighton Greene, P.T. Henry, and Bill Hoehn, who has been 
with me a long time. Creighton and P.T. have all done a tremendous job. 
Bill Hoehn has made remarkable contributions to national security at 
the Rand Corp., as a DOD official in the Reagan administration, and on 
our committee. Mike McCord is a genius with budget numbers and has been 
our mainstay in so much of the analysis that is critical for our 
committee.
  Frank Norton has done a wonderful job on military construction. Julie 
Rief is a true professional on construction and family housing issues. 
Chris Cowart, who runs the committee and tolerates Arnold Punaro. Chris 
can hear him all across the Capitol, wherever he is, and she has done 
so much for our committee day in and day out. I thank Jan Gordon, 
Jennifer Lambert, Danny Ginsberg, Jay Thompson for their hard work. 
Maurice Hutchinson and DeNeige (Denny) Watson, who have come out 
temporarily, Maurice from the Department of Defense and Denny from the 
executive branch, to help me personally and our entire committee in 
analyzing key developments in Asia and the former Soviet Union. Maurice 
was involved in Asia and Denny with the former Soviet Union.
  Mr. President, I would like to have a chance to thank everybody who I 
have served with on staff. I will not name them all today. Generally 
speaking, without any doubt, we could not prepare any bill, let alone a 
bill of this size, without their help. They do the hard work under a 
great deal of pressure and with impossible deadlines. They stay up all 
night many times. The taxpayers of this Nation are well-served. All of 
them are underpaid, in terms of not only the hours they work, but in 
terms of what they could earn if they were out in the private sector. 
They, like our men and women in uniform, make sacrifices for our 
national security. I think that should be said.
  Finally, Mr. President, I thank the Democratic floor staff. I will 
not try to name all of them. They are absolutely remarkable people. We 
take them for granted because they are so good. The floor staff here on 
the Democratic side--and I am sure the same is true on the Republican 
side--are terrific. We appreciate their help in every step we take to 
get our bills and legislation through.
  In closing, this is a good conference report. I congratulate Senator 
Thurmond, all of our staff, members of the committee, and the 
conferees. Again, I thank Senator Thurmond for his leadership. This 
legislation will improve our national security, and that is what we are 
all about. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FORD. Will Senator Nunn yield me a few minutes?
  Mr. NUNN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we're here today to vote on the conference 
report to the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill. But before I 
begin my remarks on this legislation I want to take a moment to commend 
my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Georgia, Sam 
Nunn.
  Today, the Senate will see the last Defense conference report handled 
by my colleague, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is already 
feeling the tremendous loss.
  Both as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and its 
ranking member, Senator Nunn gained a reputation for working with 
members on both sides of the aisle. His ability to forge compromises in 
the best interest of the Nation has made Senator Nunn

[[Page S10033]]

not only a skilled legislator, but also a true leader.
  In addition to thanking the committee, the chairman, and the ranking 
member, I also want to give special thanks to Senator Coats for his 
tireless effort to preserve our language to assist the Navy's 
privatization efforts at the Louisville Naval Ordnance Station and the 
Indianapolis Naval Surface Warfare Center.
  I want to turn now to the 1997 fiscal year Defense authorization 
bill's conference report. I was very pleased to see the conferees 
retained my funding for the Urban Combat Training Center at Ft Knox, 
along with my language to protect the pensions of certain employees 
affected by the BRAC privatization effort and on impact aid. However, 
I'm very disappointed that the conferees dropped my language on the 
chemical demilitarization program.
  While the final bill language is a compromise from the legislation 
Senators Coats, Lugar, Hutchison, and I introduced a few months ago, it 
accomplishes our goal of providing a deferred annuity for those 
Department of Defense employees targeted for privatization as directed 
by the Base Closure Commission and who consequently, will lose their 
benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System.
  This 2-year pilot program: Requires the GAO to evaluate and report to 
Congress on the successes or failures of the program; leaves the 
Secretaries of the military services the discretion of implementing a 
program; and indexes a deferred annuity.
  In their report on the Senate Defense authorization bill, CBO 
estimates that the civilian retirement annuities, section 1121, 
proposal would reduce spending by $362 million by the year 2003.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an outline of what this provision does and why it was needed.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   BRAC Privatization: The CSRS Issue

       Issue: The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission 
     has recommended the privatization of certain military 
     facilities. For privatization to succeed, the maintenance of 
     an experienced workforce is critical. Retirement benefits 
     have become recognized as a major impediment to the 
     privatization of the Louisville and Indianapolis Navy 
     facilities and other Department of Defense (DOD) facilities.
       In the absence of legislation to protect their retirement 
     benefits, many employees will--and are--transferring to other 
     Federal positions to maintain and protect their retirement 
     benefits under the Civil Service Retiement System (CSRS).
       If a large number of key employees transfer within the 
     government rather than work for a private sector contractor, 
     privatization savings to the the government may not be fully 
     realized. The Department of the Navy estimates that 
     privatization of Louisville and Indianapolis would provide up 
     to $390 million in ``cost avoidance'' to the government.
       Unlike other Base closings, the cost to the Federal 
     government to close and move the work at Louisville and 
     Indianapolis is far greater than the cost of privatization. 
     The retention of the Federal employees at these facilities is 
     essential to the private contractor.
       Background: The 1995 BRAC Commission directed privatization 
     of two Navy facilities with a large Federal workforce--the 
     Naval Surface Warfare Center, Louisville, Kentucky, and the 
     Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indianapolis, Indiana (the 1993 
     Commission directed the Air Force to privatize Newark Air 
     Force Base in Ohio).
       These Federal employees are different from other employees 
     adversely affected by downsizing--the key difference is that 
     these employees are not being separated because their 
     services are no longer needed or because the work they 
     accomplished is redundant or unnecessary. Under the BRAC 
     ``Close and Move'' scenario these employees would have been 
     eligible to continue their Federal employment (and qualify 
     for an annuity) at another Federal installation. These 
     employees are expected to continue accomplishing the same 
     mission as before, but they will be working as private sector 
     employees.
       Most Federal employees hired before 1984 currently 
     participate in the CSRS; those workers hired after 1984 
     participate in the Federal Employees Retirement System 
     (FERS). FERS is different than CSRS because it is a portable 
     plan in that it allows a Federal employee to move between 
     Federal and non-Federal employment. In doing so, the accrual 
     of Federal benefits is not significantly penalized.
       However, employees under CSRS have no portability because 
     it is a single component defined benefit plan. Therefore, 
     when CSRS covered workers are forced to separate from Federal 
     employment before they are eligible for an immediate annuity, 
     their retirement benefits lost considerable value. Employees 
     who lose their Federal position and withdraw their retirement 
     contribution early forfeit all benefits from the Federal 
     government and thereby are not eligible for a pension.
       Employees with the most experience tend to be covered under 
     CSRS. These are the employees the contractor taking over the 
     work at a government facility considers to be very valuable. 
     For example, 46% of the employees at the Louisville Naval 
     Surface Warfare Center are covered by CSRS and are not 
     eligible for retirement. Many of these employees, who are 
     highly skilled, are seeking to transfer to other Federal 
     positions. Some are even accepting lower paid positions 
     within DOD, so that they may maintain their CSRS retirement 
     benefits. As a result, there is little incentive for CSRS 
     employees to accept positions with the private contractor. 
     Therefore, the privatization of Federal facilities could fail 
     at a significant cost to the Government and the U.S. 
     taxpayers.


                           Legislative Remedy

       To rectify the CSRS issue, the legislation proposes to 
     index a deferred annuity for DOD CSRS Employees. It would be 
     a pilot program for two years with a requirement that the GAO 
     report to Congress its evaluation on the success or problems 
     with the program. It is discretionary with the Secretary of 
     the military service to implement a program and the Service 
     would have to pay into CSRS the annual pay raises for the 
     indexed annuity (this is similar to what Congress established 
     for the postal employees). The legislation would address the 
     issue of CSRS employees receiving a retirement benefit by:
       Indexing the average pay on which the annuity is computed, 
     and allowing a Federal deferred annuity to be paid to 
     specific CSRS employees at the individual's optional 
     retirement age, and the employees must forego their Federal 
     severance pay.
       The legislation will apply only to Transferred Employees of 
     the Department of Defense. A Transferred Employee is one 
     whose job is privatized pursuant to a decision of the BRAC 
     Commission. This indexed, deferred annuity will be available 
     only to individuals participating in CSRS, and not to those 
     participating in FERS. The legislation will apply to only 
     those CSRS employees who are ineligible to retire and who 
     accept work with the private contractor.
       Reasons for legislation:
       At this time there are no administrative remedies.
       Treats employees equitably and thus stabilizes the 
     workforce for privatization.
       Is acceptable to contractors.
       Is easy to administer.
       Understandable; makes sense.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I'm also very pleased that conferees kept my 
amendment on impact aid in the final bill. Since the Truman 
administration, the Federal Government has acknowledged its 
responsibility in assisting school districts educate federally 
connected children through the Impact Aid Program.
  In 1994, Congress made a change to this program and said that if a 
school district which provides an education to children whose parents 
are civilian and work on Federal property does not enroll 2,000 of 
these students and this does not impact a school district by 15 percent 
then the school district would not be able to count these children for 
payment.
  With this change, we drew a line in the sand which was arbitrary and 
unfair. We ignored the fact that a school district may be heavily 
impacted, but may not enroll 2,000 of these students in it school 
district. The end result was that our rural school districts were 
penalized unfairly because of their size. But, these students have as 
much of an impact on smaller school districts as they do on any of the 
larger school districts.
  I am pleased to see that the provision I offered lowering this 
threshold to 1,000 students or 10 percent impact, has been retained. 
This has been a difficult change to make, and I'm pleased and thankful 
for the support this amendment has received from my colleagues, 
especially Senator Warner and other members of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. We can all be proud that we corrected an error that 
would have caused school districts in 42 States unjust hardships.
  Despite being very pleased to see the Coats-Ford pension changes and 
my impact aid language included in the final bill, I'm very 
disappointed the conferees dropped language Senator Brown and I had 
included on chemical weapons demilitarization.
  Maybe we ought to treat this conference report like a crime scene. 
Let's dust for fingerprints and see just who it was who ripped the 
Ford-Brown language out. While we're at it let's find out what their 
motives could have possibly been.
  For those who decided to play behind-the-scenes politics with this 
deadly issue let me remind you that it only

[[Page S10034]]

takes one drop of a nerve agent like sarin to kill a person. A major 
release would kill 1 in 10 people within a 40-mile radius according to 
some projections.
  Their decision seems even more imprudent with the news of a nerve gas 
leak in Utah. I find it amazing that the Army remains as hard as a 
bull's head on this issue despite having to literally shut down 
operations in Utah almost as soon as they started because of a leak. 
With all their big talk about advanced technology, it took just one 
leaky gasket to close up shop.
  That's why the Ford-Brown language had the support of the President, 
who expressed his satisfaction that an agreement had been reached on 
such a critical issue. I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated 
July 17 from the President be printed in the Record immediately 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. FORD. In his letter, President Clinton wrote:

       . . . I realize that technology is changing rapidly and 
     that it is our responsibility to explore all alternative 
     means of destruction. . . .

  He continues:

       . . . As we go forward with our program to dispose of these 
     dangerous weapons, we will not pass on an opportunity 
     simultaneously to look for alternatives to incineration. I 
     urge the House-Senate Conference to act favorably on this 
     amendment . . .

  But today the American public is seeing what can happen when policy 
is made behind closed doors. I can only hope that those responsible for 
this irresponsible action simply didn't understand the impact of 
leaving us with language that is much, much weaker. If that's the case 
let me tell you as clearly as I can that your actions essentially leave 
us emptyhanded.

  Because of this indiscretion we won't have a chance to discover if 
there's an alternative to the baseline incineration program. Instead, 
the conferees have chosen to spend $12 billion on a program which the 
affected citizens haven't accepted--and with good reason--as a safe 
method of destroying chemical weapons.
  Recent reports of the nerve gas leak in Utah further underscore just 
how much is at stake. As Craig Williams, a spokesman for the Chemical 
Weapons Working Group put it, ``This program is 12 years behind 
schedule and 700 percent over budget. They are desperately trying to 
keep it afloat.''
  I'm outraged that back room deals in the Senate have not only made us 
a silent partner in the Army's efforts, but will essentially lock in 
the baseline incineration program. This was done despite a letter from 
the President supporting the Ford-Brown language and despite the 
overwhelming evidence that safer alternatives exist.
  This change causes delays of at least a year in the commencement of 
an alternative pilot program and gives the Secretary of Defense 
authority not to conduct a pilot program based upon a paper assessment. 
Those responsible for this are fooling themselves if they think I'm the 
only one who will recognize what a sham this language makes of our 
efforts and our constituents' concerns.
  I wonder if you've considered the whole transportation issue? Did you 
realize that we have to transport neutralized chemical agent and 
residual materials to a central facility for incineration? What will 
you tell the site that becomes the dumping ground for all other sites? 
That's a real possibility since the language doesn't limit shipment of 
neutralized chemical agent and residual material to the chemical 
demilitarization sites. Thanks to this new conference language, any 
State that has a permit to burn hazardous waste may be a potential 
shipment point.
  Mr. President, this language puts the alternative program under the 
current chemical demilitarization management--exactly opposite from the 
Ford-Brown amendment. Their justification for doing this is that ``the 
conferees are concerned that a divided program under separate managers 
would result in duplication of effort and increased costs and would 
jeopardize safety.''
  The Ford-Brown language resolved many of the problems that have 
brought us to this point today. Not only would it have set out a 3-year 
deadline for completion, but our language stipulated that no funds were 
to be expended for the purchase of long lead materials that are 
incineration specific. It also gave the Secretary of Defense latitude 
to appoint the best individual for the program, even if this person 
came from another agency. By making the Secretary accountable, we could 
have ensured the pilot program wasn't compromised.
  Our amendment would have allowed the Department of Defense to 
transfer funds to other parties within the Federal Government to ensure 
that this project would be completed in an efficient and timely manner 
and again, so that there would be an independent review and analysis of 
alternative technologies. It also required accountability with a report 
to be filed with Congress each year on the progress of the program.
  So whether you're talking about accountability or effectiveness, this 
conference report language flat out fails the affected communities. In 
fact, it biases the program in such a way that no one in the effected 
communities will believe anything that comes out of the Army Chemical 
Demilitarization Program.
  We already know that lawsuits have and will be filed in other States 
who are opposed to the baseline incineration program. This situation 
could be avoided if the conferees had stayed with the Ford-Brown 
language. And more important, it could have been avoided if those 
people working behind-the-scenes to kill our provision remembered that 
they ultimately answer to the American people, not to the National 
Research Council or those running the Army chemical demilitarization 
show.
  While the conference report isn't amendable, I haven't given up on 
this and will be doing everything I can to reverse this grave policy 
error.

                               Exhibit 1


                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, July 17, 1996.
     Hon. Wendell H. Ford,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Wendell: I am pleased that we were able to reach an 
     agreement on the Ford-Brown chemical weapons demilitarization 
     amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that the Senate 
     adopted on June 26 during debate on S. 1745. The National 
     Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded in its 1994 study that 
     the continued storage of these obsolete and dangerous weapons 
     poses severe environmental and safety problems for workers 
     and communities. I am dedicated to ensuring that these 
     weapons are destroyed as quickly and safely as possible.
       I am also committed to going the extra mile to explore 
     whether there may be safer and more environmentally sound 
     alternatives to the Army's baseline incineration system, even 
     though the 1994 NAS study concluded that the baseline system 
     has been demonstrated as a safe and effective disposal 
     process for the stockpile. I continue to believe that a well-
     designed incineration system can be a safe and 
     environmentally acceptable means of destroying these weapons 
     and that any potential decrease in disposal risks through 
     alternative approaches must be balanced against the increased 
     risk of storage by delaying destruction. Still, I realize 
     that technology is changing rapidly and that it is our 
     responsibility to explore all alternative means of 
     destruction. My Administration will work very hard to ensure 
     that all Americans have a safe and healthy environment. As we 
     go forward with our program to dispose of these dangerous 
     weapons, we will not pass on an opportunity simultaneously to 
     look for alternatives to incineration.
       I urge the House-Senate Conference Committee to act 
     favorably on this amendment. I am asking the Secretary of 
     Defense to work with the Congress to ensure that this pilot 
     project receives the highest priority in the Chemical 
     Demilitarization Program. I commend you for seeking 
     alternative solutions to this very difficult problem.
           Sincerely,
                                                             Bill.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the conference on the Fiscal Year 1997 
Department of Defense Authorization bill has been concluded. In many 
respects, the bill has been improved in conference over both the House- 
and Senate-passed versions. Policy provisions have been dropped that 
might have led us into needless conflict with Russia and that might 
have jeopardized strategic arms reductions which make the whole world 
safer. I commend the conferees, under the able leadership of Senator 
Thurmond and Senator Nunn, for these changes. I would note also that 
this is Senator Nunn's last defense conference. I congratulate him on 
the selfless and dedicated service he has given to the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, to the Senate, to the people of

[[Page S10035]]

Georgia, and to the Nation. I shall miss his thoughtful analysis and 
cogent arguments of security threats facing this nation.
  Although action was taken on the floor to bring the bill into line 
with the Budget Resolution, at $265.6 billion, it is still $11 billion 
over the administration's request of $254.3 billion. It is hard to 
imagine that $254.3 billion is not sufficient to maintain our nation's 
military forces, but it was adjudged to be too little to maintain our 
defense establishment.
  I earlier expressed my hope that the amount might be reduced in 
conference, but it has not been. As I have stated previously, I did not 
vote for the Budget Resolution because I did not agree with the choice 
made to add funds to defense while cutting other critical non-defense 
domestic discretionary accounts. The Fiscal Year 1997 defense 
authorization and appropriations bills hew to the path that was set 
forth in the Budget Resolution. I cannot blame the managers of these 
bills for playing the card they were dealt, and spending the money in 
the most effective manner possible, but I cannot follow the same path. 
Regretfully, for I believe the conference has improved its content, I 
must vote against this bill.
  A strong defense is all well and good, Mr. President, but other 
things are also important. A nation's strength is measured not only in 
military strength, but in the strength of its infrastructure, its 
economy, and its people. I think we need a better balance between our 
spending on defense and our spending on other programs. Recent events 
in Atlanta and the tragic and unexplained loss of TWA flight 800 have 
raised fears of terrorism to new levels, and have added priority as 
well as funding to anti-terrorism and counterproliferation efforts. 
Americans have prepared themselves for the inconvenience and drag on 
productivity that greater security measures will impose. But what about 
the loss of life and loss of productivity created by the imbalance in 
funding between defense and non-defense discretionary programs that has 
been accentuated by the congressional budget process? How high does the 
illiteracy rate have to climb before we stop cutting funds for 
education, teachers, and books? How many airline crashes must occur 
before the FAA gets funds for more inspectors? When will we add funds 
for programs to keep aircraft and passengers safe, rather than add 
funds for far-fetched and technologically risky plans to stop incoming 
ballistic missiles? This conference agreed to add $350 million to the 
administration's already generous request of $508.4 million for 
national missile defense.

  How many children must die from contaminated hamburgers before we 
find more funds for food inspectors? How many sick people must die 
before the Food and Drug Administration gets more funds to speed the 
review of new medicines and other treatments? These are the choices we 
make when we add money to defense. The pot is only so big; the more 
that gets ladled into the defense bowl, the less there remains to dole 
out to defense against illiteracy, unsafe conditions, and disease.
  There is much talk of readiness, of funds being needed to prepare for 
military contingencies. That is what some of these added funds are 
meant to address. But, while we are willing to prepare for and to wage 
war, we must also be prepared to pay the wages of war. I offered an 
amendment to provide $10 million for independent scientific research 
into the possible link between chemical warfare agent exposure and the 
Gulf War syndrome being suffered by large numbers of Gulf War veterans. 
My amendment would also have provided health care for the children of 
these veterans who have birth defects or catastrophic illnesses that 
may be related to their parents' wartime exposures.
  I am glad that the conferees agreed to designate the funds from 
within the $9 billion Defense Health Program for this research. It has 
been five years since the Gulf War, and no such research has been 
conducted, despite veterans' concerns that this exposure may be at the 
root of their illnesses and at the root of their childrens' tragic 
conditions. A recent Department of Defense admission that chemical 
weapons were among Iraqi ammunition stores that were blown up over U.S. 
troops have reignited concerns about chemical warfare agent exposure. I 
am glad that this research may now be conducted, and I hope that the 
Department of Defense will move quickly to get the research started.
  In the interim, I had hoped that the conferees would agree with my 
proposal to provide health care for the affected children. Their 
situations are truly tragic, and are financially devastating to their 
families. I asked that these children, the likely victims of an 
increasingly toxic battlefield, be given the benefit of the doubt until 
scientific research establishes evidence of a link between their 
parents' exposure and their conditions. Sadly, the conferees were not 
prepared to be that compassionate. Out of a $265.6 billion defense 
budget, not $30 million could be found to provide for these children 
while appropriate scientific research is conducted. Instead, the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs have been 
directed to develop a plan to provide care only after these birth 
defects and catastrophic illnesses have been proven to a reasonable 
scientific certainty to be linked to their parents' wartime exposures. 
I urgently hope that the research moves fast enough to convince my 
colleagues before these children and their families pay too high a wage 
for their participation in our Nation's wars.


                     EA-6B reactive jammer program

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, airborne electronic warfare has been an 
item of special interest for the Committee on Armed Services for 
several years now, not only because of its importance in strike warfare 
but also because of the Department of Defense's checkered record of 
providing substantial programs and clear direction in this area. In 
fact, I believe it was when Senator Nunn chaired the committee in 1992, 
that the committee urged the Defense Department to merge electronic 
warfare programs to provide a more cost-effective, and indeed, a more 
effective EW capability.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for bringing up this 
issue. It is true that the committee proposed to merge the Air Force's 
and the Navy's requirements into one electronic warfare aircraft 
program that could be pursued aggressively, but the Department of 
Defense responded that it needed two separate robustly funded jamming 
aircraft programs. Now it has one program that limps along without the 
benefit of any real capability upgrades.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I agree with Senator Nunn and believe 
this year's bill is designed to move forward with this very important 
program. Section 123 of the Conference Report contains a prohibition on 
the obligation of funds for modifications or upgrades for EA-6B 
aircraft until funds have been obligated for a reactive jammer program, 
a report has been received, and 30 days have elapsed from the date of 
the receipt of the report. Specifically, section 123(a) prohibits the 
obligation of funds for modifications to EA-6B aircraft until a 
certification that some or all of such funds have been obligated for a 
reactive jammer program for EA-6B aircraft. Only research and 
development funds have been authorized and appropriated for the 
reactive jammer program and, as I understand it, the funds mentioned in 
this section refer to those research and development funds for 
initiation of a reactive jammer program. Does the Senator from Georgia 
interpret the section as I do?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from South 
Carolina's interpretation. The mention of ``some or all of such funds'' 
does indeed refer to research and development funds, not to procurement 
funds. The intent of the conference is that the prohibition is on the 
obligation of procurement funds until some or all of the research and 
development funds are obligated for a reactive jammer program.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, thank you for providing me the 
opportunity to clarify this section of the conference report.


         SECTION 3154 OF H.R. 3230, DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased the conference report 
contains section 3154, which requires the Department of Energy [DOE] to 
carry out a study to determine the extent and valuation of natural 
resource damages at DOE sites. I authored this provision as chairman of 
the Senate Energy

[[Page S10036]]

Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight. Frankly, I was shocked to find 
that the Department had not yet done their own study of this 
potentially huge future liability, and that is why I introduced this 
amendment.
  It is vital that the Department of Energy obtain comprehensive and 
accurate information regarding the extent and valuation of natural 
resource damages at DOE sites. This is especially important if we are 
to make realistic budget assumptions today and set realistic budget 
goals for the future. Unfortunately, there has not been a reliable 
study done on this issue to date.
  During the course of Superfund hearings held in the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, significant questions have been raised about 
the Department of Energy's liability for natural resource damages at 
their Superfund sites. Department officials first estimated liability 
in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Since that time, GAO has looked 
at the situation, as has CEQ. However, the CEQ and GAO estimates are 
quite different. GAO estimates a high range of $15 billion while CEQ 
says the high range is $500 million. The disparity between these two 
studies is troubling, as is the fact that DOE has never done their own 
study.
  This amendment directs DOE to conduct their own study, to use 
realistic assumptions about liability based on the real world 
experience private parties have already had, and to report to the 
Congress 90 days after enactment. This real world experience is the 
methods in the current natural resource damages assessment regulations, 
and should be consistent with the position asserted by public trustees 
in suits against private parties and with the position supported by the 
administration pertaining to damages against private parties. While I 
would be happy to work with DOE to ensure they have enough time to do a 
credible job, it is important that they complete their work before we 
move to reauthorize the Superfund program next year and before next 
year's appropriations cycle.
  Finally, I want to emphasize that the intent of this section is 
purely for oversight functions. This section in no way should be 
interpreted as a reflection of support for the current operation of the 
natural resource damages provisions of CERCLA. I in no way endorse the 
methodologies used by public trustees under the current natural 
resource damages regulations. I simply believe that if private parties 
face these regulations today, and if the Department of Energy is the 
single largest potentially responsible party in the country, then we 
ought to use the same standard in estimating DOE liability at these 
sites. I look forward to receiving this study and to possible future 
hearings on this issue.
  Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Thurmond and Senator Nunn for 
their help on this matter.

                          ____________________