[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 122 (Monday, September 9, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10036-S10047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CABLE TELEVISION PROVISION

  Mr. SMITH. I would like to engage the chairman and ranking member of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee on section 833 of the conference 
bill, relating to cable television franchise agreements on military 
bases. That section implements an advisory opinion of the U.S. Court of 
Federal Claims, which found that cable television franchise agreements 
on military bases are contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation [FAR].
  As chairman of the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee, I believe 
that when negotiating the settlement ordered by section 833(3), the 
parties should give due consideration to the fair compensation of cable 
operators terminated for the convenience of the Government in 
accordance with part 49 of the FAR. Factors to be considered may 
include, to the extent provided in the FAR, interest on capital 
expenditures, settlement preparation costs, and other expenses 
reasonably incurred by such operators in connection with constructing 
their cable systems or obtaining fair compensation.
  Mr. THURMOND. I agree with the statement of the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. NUNN. I also agree with the statement of the Senator from New 
Hampshire.


                           Submarine Language

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in section 121 of the conference report 
I read that funds in this bill are:

       * * *available for contracts with Electric Boat Division 
     and Newport News Shipbuilding to carry out the provisions of 
     the ``Memorandum of Agreement among the Department of the 
     Navy, Electric Boat Corporation (EB) and Newport News 
     Shipbuilding and Drydock Company (NNS) concerning the New 
     Attack Submarine'' dated April 5, 1996, relating to design 
     data transfer, design improvements, integrated process teams, 
     and update design base.

  Further, in the bill, under subsection (g) Design Responsibility, I 
read,

       The Secretary shall ensure that both shipbuilders have full 
     and open access to all design data concerning the design of 
     the submarine previously designated by the Navy as the New 
     Attack Submarine.

  Mr. President, reading a portion of the aforementioned memorandum of 
agreement, a copy of which I am submitting for the record, NNS is to 
``be provided design deliverable information in a manner and scope that 
is generally consistent with that provided in the latest submarine 
program (SeaWolf). Design data transfer will be conducted in the most 
cost effective manner to support construction of follow-on ships at 
NNS.'' My interpretation of subsection (g)(1) of section 121 is that 
this subsection does not require the transfer of any design data 
between the shipyards which are not required by the memorandum of 
agreement. Am I correct in my interpretation of the intent of the 
conferees?
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I would say that the Senator from 
Connecticut is correct in his interpretation of the language in the 
bill regarding the transfer of design data between the two shipyards. 
It was the intent of the conferees to reaffirm last year's requirement 
requiring the transfer of design data regarding the new attack 
submarine to Newport News Shipbuilding. It was not the intent of the 
conferees to change the terms of the memorandum of agreement. Further, 
it was the intent of the conferees that the appropriate US Navy 
official resolve differences of opinion about what information is 
required to be transferred under the MOA.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may I say that I fully agree with the 
distinguished chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee on this point.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I agree with my colleagues interpretation 
of this important subsection of the conference report.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, thank you for providing me the 
opportunity to clarify this most important section of the conference 
report.


    Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, after a truly heroic effort by both members 
and staff, before the recess we completed action on a conference 
agreement on the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill. I hope 
this agreement will be voted on by the Senate soon. I wanted to take a 
few moments to highlight one provision in that bill which relates 
specifically to a recent tragic incident that has hit all of us in our 
hearts and homes. The incident to which I refer is the terrorist pipe 
bomb that went off in Centennial Park--the heart of the Olympic 
celebration in Atlanta--in July, which killed 1, caused the death of 
another, and injured over 100 people.
  But, Mr. President, at this point in history, we have to ask 
ourselves, ``What if?'' What if this hadn't been a crude pipe bomb? 
What if the individual who planted this terrorist device had used 
information readily available on the Internet and materials readily and 
legally available to concoct a chemical weapon? Or, worse, suppose he 
had concocted a biological weapon?
  The answer seems too terrible to consider, but consider it we must. 
And that is precisely why Senator Lugar, Senator Domenici, and I 
cosponsored the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, an 
amendment--adopted by a unanimous vote in the Senate--to the Defense 
authorization bill that addresses this very threat. I am pleased to say 
that our colleagues in the House of Representatives also accepted this 
amendment in the conference report virtually as it passed the Senate.
  Mr. President, the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction 
Program, now title XIV of the Defense authorization bill, provides $201 
million--$144 million to the Department of Defense and $57 million to 
the Department of

[[Page S10037]]

Energy--to address the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  DOD is being given $65 million 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; $10.5 
million of this funding is specifically earmarked for DOD assistance to 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services in forming emergency medical 
response teams capable of dealing with these materials.
  DOD is also being given $30 million both to provide equipment and 
assistance to the United States Customs Service and to help train 
customs 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 reach the hands of terrorists in 
the United States. An additional $27 million is provided to DOD and DOE 
for research and development of improved detection technologies, which 
are badly needed.

  Finally, DOD and DOE are provided additional funding to address the 
threat of proliferation at its source. In addition to being fully 
funded at the administration's request of $327.9 million, DOD's 
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is being provided $37 million for 
projects designed to destroy, dismantle, and improve controls over the 
former Soviet Union's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. DOE is 
being provided $40 million for its programs in this area.
  The provision also calls for the creation of a senior level 
coordinator to improve the Federal Government's efforts in dealing with 
the threat of proliferation and to coordinate Federal, State, and local 
plans and training. Some $2 million is provided for the coordinator to 
use in focusing research efforts on improved planning, coordination, 
and training efforts.
  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.
  This threat is very different than the threat of nuclear annihilation 
with which our Nation and the world dealt during the cold war.
  During the cold war both we and the Soviet Union recognized that 
either side could destroy the other within an hour, but only at the 
price of its own destruction.
  I have heard too many experts, whose opinions and credentials I 
respect, tell me that it is not a question of if but only of when 
terrorists will use chemical or biological--or even nuclear--weapons in 
the United States.
  In July, the Commission on America's National Interests, cochaired by 
Andrew Goodpaster, Robert Ellsworth, and Rita Hauser, released a study 
that concluded that the No. 1 vital U.S. national interest today is to 
prevent, deter, and reduce the threat of nuclear, biological, and 
chemical weapons attacks on the United States. The report also 
identified preventing the loss of control of nuclear weapons and 
nuclear weapons-usable materials, and the containment of biological and 
chemical weapons proliferation as one of five cardinal challenges for 
the next U.S. President.

  The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee held a series of hearings over the last year on the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, at which representatives 
of the intelligence and law enforcement communities, the Defense 
Department, private industry, State and local governments, academia, 
and foreign officials described a threat that we cannot ignore, but for 
which we are virtually totally unprepared.
  CIA Director John Deutch, for one, candidly observed ``We've been 
lucky so far.''
  And, in fact, we have already received at least three loud warning 
bells. First was the release of deadly sarin gas in the Tokyo subway 
system. Second was the truck bomb which went off in the garage of the 
World Trade Center in New York City--a bomb that the trial judge 
believed the killers intended to be a chemical weapon which, had it 
deployed as intended, would have killed thousands. Third was the 
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The 
pipe bomb in July in Atlanta serves as yet another warning that we must 
improve our preparedness for terrorist attacks in this country.
  Mr. President, this legislation will significantly improve our 
ability to deal with this threat--an ability which today is clearly not 
up to the challenge. We have heard testimony in recent months at 
hearings held by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that 
speaks clearly to the remarkable lack of domestic preparedness for an 
incident involving nuclear, radiological, chemical, or biological 
materials.
  Fire chiefs said that they cannot plan on Federal emergency 
assistance to help in an emergency of this nature as it is simply too 
long in coming.
  Local emergency first-responders--policemen, firemen, medical 
technicians--grimly said over and over again that they were incapable 
of dealing with a chemical or, especially, biological weapon or 
incident.
  By providing funding and a mandate for DOD and DOE to share their 
experience, expertise, and equipment dealing with nuclear, 
radiological, chemical, and biological weapons and materials, we can 
address critical shortfalls in our domestic preparedness that have been 
specifically and repeatedly noted in congressional testimony and 
documentation.
  Several modest exercises have been held to test how Federal, State, 
and local emergency responders would deal with a nuclear, radiological, 
chemical, or biological attack.
  In one large exercise, the first 100 or so emergency response 
personnel--police, firemen, medical personnel--arriving at the scene of 
a mock chemical weapon disaster rushed headlong into the emergency 
scene, and were promptly declared ``dead'' by the referees.
  In a second exercise featuring both chemical and biological weapons, 
contaminated casualties brought to the nearest hospital were handled so 
carelessly by hospital personnel that, within hours, most of the 
hospital staff were judged to have been killed or incapacitated by 
spreading contamination.
  In addition, a report recently forwarded by the Secretaries of 
Defense and Energy to Congress on our preparedness for a nuclear, 
radiological, chemical, or biological terrorist attack noted that, 
``response personnel are relatively few in number and pieces of 
equipment necessary to provide adequate support to an NBC event are in 
some cases one of a kind.''
  I still remain fully convinced that the best way to prevent the use 
of these terrible weapons and materials on American soil is by stopping 
them before they get here. For this reason, this legislation provides 
additional resources and impetus for enhancing our ability here at home 
to detect and interdict nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and 
related materials before they get into the hands of terrorists or 
malcontents.
  An extensive study by Arnaud de Borchgrave, Judge William Webster, 
former Director of the FBI and CIA, Congressman Bill McCollum, and 
others, published earlier this year by the respected Center for 
Strategic & International Studies [CSIS], concluded that ``there are 
few opportunities for detecting, interdicting, and neutralizing these 
materials once they are beyond the source site. * * * Attention and 
resources must be directed toward post-theft measures as well.''
  Mr. President, the single best way to deal with this threat is by 
preventing proliferation at its source, as far away from the United 
States as possible. That is why this legislation also bolsters the 
original concept introduced by Senator Lugar and myself in 1991, which 
aims at helping the states of the former Soviet Union to improve their 
safeguards and controls over existing stockpiles of deadly materials.
  The CSIS de Borchgrave-Webster study also found that:

       The most serious national security threat facing the United 
     States, its allies, and its interests is the theft of 
     nuclear weapons or weapons-usable materials from the 
     former Soviet Union. The consequences of such a theft--
     measured in terms of politics, economics, diplomacy, 
     military response, and public health and safety--would be 
     catastrophic.
  de Borchgrave himself stated at a press conference that: ``We have 
concluded that we're faced now with as big

[[Page S10038]]

a threat as any we faced during the cold war, when the balance of 
terror kept the peace for almost half a century.''
  Finally, Mr. President, this legislation attempts to improve the 
overall coordination of how we deal with the broad threat to our Nation 
posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  There are currently dozens of government agencies that deal with the 
various aspects of this threat, with overlapping authorities and 
programs, but with serious gaps.
  Testimony provided in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 
revealed that coordination between Federal agencies is seriously 
lacking, and that there is virtually no effective coordination or 
communication between the Federal Government and State and local 
agencies and organizations. This appears to be changing, at least in 
the case of the Olympic games in Atlanta.
  I visited Atlanta during the Olympics and received a briefing by a 
group of representatives from various Federal agencies that were 
working together to provide security for the Olympic games. I strongly 
commend their joint efforts, but, this must become the pattern all over 
the country. We must build from this experience, improve in areas where 
we have weaknesses, and make this kind of interagency cooperative 
effort the norm.
  Mr. President, I believe this legislation, while only a beginning, 
responds to a very urgent national security concern of our Nation. I 
commend all of the Defense authorization conferees for their swift 
actions in approving the inclusion of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Defense 
Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act in the conference agreement, 
and I look forward to the President signing this legislation into law.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report on the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill. I want to 
take this opportunity to commend the distinguished chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, for putting together an 
outstanding bill. Senator Thurmond worked tirelessly to conclude the 
conference quickly and efficiently, and the product is a bill that we 
can all be proud of.
  I also want to pay tribute to the ranking member, Senator Nunn. 
Senator Nunn has served on the Armed Services Committee with 
distinction for 23 years. Throughout that time, he has been steadfast 
in his support for a strong, capable, and highly prepared military. 
This will be Senator Nunn's final Defense authorization bill, and I 
want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Nunn for his outstanding 
work on behalf of the men and women of our Armed Forces.
  Mr. President, the bill before us includes a much-needed increase of 
$11.2 billion from the President's budget request for national defense. 
I want to emphasize that even with this increase the total level of 
Defense spending remains $7.4 billion below last year's level when 
adjusted for inflation. We are in the 12th straight year of decline in 
Defense spending.
  For the benefit of my colleagues, I want to briefly summarize some of 
the highlights of this conference bill. The bill before us includes a 3 
percent pay raise and a 4.6 percent increase in the basic allowance for 
quarters for our Armed Forces.
  It directs the Secretaries of Defense and Health and Human Services 
to prepare and implement a demonstration program enabling Medicare-
eligible beneficiaries to enroll in the Tricare, the DOD health care 
program.
  The bill approves $10 million in additional research funding to 
examine the relationship between service of our men and women in the 
Gulf war and the incidence of congenital birth defects and illnesses 
among their children.
  It also includes $201 million to carry out the Defense Against 
Weapons of Mass Destruction Act which addresses the Nation's ability to 
deal with threatened or actual use of nuclear, chemical, or biological 
weapons against American cities.
  The bill provides $40 million to complete development and testing of 
the Patriot Anti-Cruise Missile Upgrade Program.
  It authorizes $32 million for reactive jamming upgrades to the Navy's 
fleet of EA-6B electronic warfare aircraft.
  It includes a $24.5 million increase for night vision goggles and 
$9.1 million for infra-red aiming lights.
  It also directs that the Navy conduct a competitive evaluation of the 
ATD-111 and Magic Lantern Lidar systems to determine which system to 
acquire under the Airborne Laser Mine Detection Program.
  It provides an increase of $914 million for the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization, and $134 million specifically for the space and 
missile tracking system.
  Last, it approves an increase of roughly $300 million for 
conventional delivery enhancements for the B-1 and B-2 bombers.
  Additionally, Mr. President, I would like to briefly summarize some 
of the initiatives contained under the acquisition and technology 
section of this bill. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Acquisition 
and Technology, I have been troubled by the failure of the 
administration to adequately invest in long-term technology 
development. Modernization is the key to long-term readiness, and 
without effective investment in the technology base, we will be unable 
to preserve the technological edge that we enjoy today.
  The bill before us includes a number of important initiatives to 
support efforts of the services to develop advanced operational 
concepts and technologies, to increase the use of commercial 
technologies for defense applications, and to make defense programs 
more affordable. For instance, the bill provides $40 million to fund 
the Marine Corps' Sea Dragon experiments to develop new operational 
concepts that leverage technology and innovation; authorizes $20 
million for a joint services research and development program for 
nonlethal weapons and technologies; provides $85 million for the dual 
use applications program; authorizes $61 million for the manufacturing 
technology programs of the Army, Navy and Air Force; provides an 
increase of $12 million to continue the procurement technical 
assistance program; and includes a provision to streamline the Defense 
Department's requirements for assessing the capabilities of the 
national defense technology and industrial bases, including cases of 
unacceptable reliance on foreign sources.
  Mr. President, these are but a few of the many critically important 
initiatives contained in this bill. I would emphasize that these 
initiatives address the priorities established by the service chiefs 
and will directly enhance our national security.
  I also want to emphasize that each of the issues that President 
Clinton's advisors indicated may trigger a Presidential veto have been 
resolved to the satisfaction of the administration. Thus, this bill 
enjoys strong bipartisan support and the indications are that the 
President will sign it.
  Again, I want to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member 
for their outstanding work in formulating a conference bill that 
enhances national security and reflects the vast majority of the 
Senate's priorities for defense. They have rendered an invaluable 
service to the Nation, and I am proud to support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the conference report, and I 
yield the floor.


                   chemical weapons demilitarization

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this morning, I listened to my 
colleague from Kentucky with great interest as he expressed our mutual 
concern about the action taken by the conferees on the chemical 
demilitarization program. I share his disappointment that language 
which would have guaranteed an alternative technology program so 
clearly in the interests of our constituents was deleted in conference.
  Let me review for a moment how we ended up in this situation and how 
I hope we can correct course. Several months ago, staff representing 
all of the Members who have chemical demilitarization facilities met in 
Senator Ford's office to review the status of demilitarization at each 
site. At the time, Senator Ford offered a proposal which required the 
Department of Energy, in conjunction with the Army office which 
currently manages the incineration program, to develop alternatives to 
incineration. Although I strongly supported the idea of alternative 
technologies, the Department of

[[Page S10039]]

Energy had no demonstrated experience with chemical weapons. Given the 
danger involves with this aging stockpile, appointing an agency which, 
in effect, would have to undergo on-the-job training did not seem a 
safe or suitable option.
  As Senator Ford mentioned, both the Congress and the communities 
affected by these facilities have had serious problems with the Army 
office responsible for the baseline program. They have been adamantly 
opposed to considering any credible alternatives to incineration. This 
led me to the conclusion that assigning them any role for an 
alternative program was counterproductive so I found I was also unable 
to support this provision in Senator Ford's draft bill.
  Being uncertain about two of the key provisions in Senator Ford's 
proposal I decided to pursue my concerns through the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee. Unlike the Armed Services Committee, the 
Appropriations Committee has an unusual number of Members with chemical 
weapons sites in their States. In addition to the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee, Senator Hatfield and the ranking member on 
the Defense Subcommittee, Senator Inouye, Senators Bennett, Nighthorse 
Campbell, Shelby, Bumpers and Mikulski each have an installation of 
grave concern to their constituents. As a result, Senator Stevens was 
very responsive to our common interest in holding a hearing to consider 
the status of the Army's incineration program as well as the viability 
of alternatives.
  In discussion following the June 4 hearing, Senator Stevens agreed to 
include a provisions in the chairman's draft of the Defense 
appropriations bill which addressed my concerns. The language which 
passed the Senate and is now in conference, provides $40 million for 
the initiation of a pilot program to identify and demonstrate not less 
than two alternative technologies to the baseline incineration process. 
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology is 
directed to assign a program officer to pursue this effort. The report 
language which accompanied the bill explicitly stated.

       Under no circumstances shall the Under Secretary appoint a 
     program executive officer who is, or has ever been, in direct 
     or indirect control of the baseline reverse assembly 
     incineration process.

  Finally, the bill prohibits the obligation of funds to initiate 
construction in Kentucky or Colorado until 180 days after the Under 
Secretary has reported back on the pilot program.
  It is my understanding that the amendment that Senator Ford offered 
which was accepted on a voice vote just before final passage of the 
Defense Authorization bill has been modified so that it was compatible 
with the language already included in the Defense appropriations bill. 
This final version of Senator Ford's proposal was clearly on the right 
track and I share his disappointment about the outcome. I also agree 
with his assessment that the substitute language is in fact worse than 
the status quo in that it postpones serious consideration of 
alternative technologies and gives the managers of the current 
incineration program both the responsibility for studying alternative 
options as well as the right to veto any new ideas.
  I have discussed Senator Ford's and my concerns with both the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Since the Defense Subcommittee 
will begin conference tomorrow, it is my hope that we can reach a 
favorable solution to this unfortunate turn of events.
  I am grateful to the sound guidance I have received from Senator 
Stevens and Senator Inouye. Both have extensive experience and a 
thorough understanding of the complexities of this issue and both I and 
my constituents will look to their leadership and count on their 
continued good advice.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, title XXXI, subtitle F of the 1997 Defense 
Authorization Act is an amendment I sponsored in the Senate to clear up 
several unnecessary and delaying bureaucratic requirements that 
currently exist in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal 
Act--Public Law 102-579-WIPP. This title will allow the WIPP facility 
to open, meet a major environmental objective, and save the taxpayer 
money.
  The purpose of the WIPP is to provide for the safe disposal of 
transuranic [TRU] radioactive and mixed wastes resulting from defense 
activities and programs of the United States. These materials are 
currently stored at temporary facilities, and until WIPP is opened, 
little can be done to clean up and close these temporary storage sites.
  Idaho currently stores the largest amount of TRU waste of any State 
in the union, but Idaho is not alone. Washington, Colorado, South 
Carolina, and New Mexico also store TRU waste.
  The agreement recently negotiated between the State of Idaho, the DOE 
and the U.S. Navy states that the TRU currently located in Idaho will 
begin to be shipped to WIPP by April 30, 1999. This legislation will 
assure this commitment is fulfilled by clearly stating that it is the 
intent of Congress that the Secretary of Energy will complete all 
actions needed to commence emplacement of TRU waste at WIPP no later 
than November 30, 1997. The opening of the WIPP will solve a nagging 
and ongoing problem at the INEL--what to do with this nuclear waste 
that has accumulated over the years at the Idaho site.
  We cannot solve the environmental problems at sites such as the Idaho 
National Engineering Laboratory, Rocky Flats Weapons Facility, Savannah 
River and others without WIPP. The reason is obvious. Without a place 
to dispose of the waste, cleanup is impossible, and without cleanup, 
further site decommissioning can not occur.
  The goal of this bill is simple: To deliver on Congress' longstanding 
commitment to open WIPP by 1998.
  This bill amends the Waste Isolation Land Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal 
Act of 1992 in several very significant ways.
  It deletes obsolete language in the 1992 act. Of particular 
importance is the reference and requirements for test phase activities. 
Since the enactment of the 1992 act, the Department of Energy [DOE] has 
abandoned the test phase that called for underground testing in favor 
of above-ground laboratory test programs. Thus the test phase no longer 
exists as defined in the 1992 law and needs to be removed so it does 
not complicate the ongoing WIPP process.
  Most important, this amendment will streamline the process, remove 
duplicative regulations, save taxpayers dollars--currently, the costs 
of simply watching over WIPP exceed $20 million per month.
  This bill does not remove EPA as the DOE regulator of the WIPP. DOE 
has stated numerous times that it does not want to self-regulate. The 
Department believes that having EPA as the regulator will instill 
additional public confidence in the certification process and the 
facility itself, once it opens.
  I am skeptical regarding EPA. EPA has a poor record of meeting 
deadlines. The WIPP, as a facility, is ready to operate now and is 
basically waiting on EPA's final approval. The schedule DOE has 
established to meet the opening dates is an aggressive timetable. It is 
successful only if EPA can accomplish its tasks on time. I strongly 
encourage them to do so.
  Idaho and the Nation need to have the WIPP opened sooner rather than 
later. Each day of delay is costly (nearly $1 million per day in 
taxpayers' dollars), and the potential dangers to the environment and 
human health resulting from the temporary storage of this waste 
continue.
  It is time to act. We must, if we are to clean up sites such as the 
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. We must act to dispose of this 
nuclear waste permanently and safely for future generations. The 
passage of this Defense authorization bill clears the way for that to 
happen.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for the 
fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization conference report. The conferees 
have done an admirable job of crafting a well-balanced bill that will 
ensure our national defense needs are met in the coming fiscal year.
  At $265.6 billion for fiscal year 1997, the conference report is 
$11.2 billion above the President's budget request. Much of the 
additional funds will go toward much-needed weapons modernization, with 
$6 billion more for procurement and $3 billion more for research and 
development. Despite the increase over the budget request, however, the 
bill is actually $7.4 billion below the

[[Page S10040]]

fiscal year 1996 spending level for Defense in real terms. The 
conference report authorizes a responsible level of defense spending 
given the threats to our national security which exist in the post-cold 
war era.
  The conference report preserves our readiness to respond quickly to 
military emergencies like the one precipitated within the past 2 weeks 
by Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It emphasizes modernization and new weapons 
procurement in an effort to begin turning around the steep 71 percent 
decline in funding for military procurement over the last 10 years. It 
also continues crucial research and development of promising new 
defense technologies. These programs include the design of an effective 
ballistic missile defense system, quieter submarines, and multi-use 
fighter aircraft.
  While effective and state-of-the-art military hardware are crucial to 
maintaining our defense advantage, the best military equipment in the 
world is of little value without the highly-trained and hard-working 
service men and women on whom the success of our national defense 
ultimately depends. I am therefore pleased that the conference report 
authorizes a number of initiatives directly benefiting military 
personnel, retirees, and their families. Among these are a 3-percent 
military pay raise, a 4.6-percent increase in the basic allowance for 
quarters, $466 million for new housing, and a dental insurance plan for 
retired service members and their families. My one regret is that the 
conference agreement dropped the Murray-Snowe amendment adopted by the 
Senate which would have repealed the ban on abortions at overseas 
military hospitals.
  Mr. President, I am especially pleased that the conference report 
supports a strong and efficient Aegis destroyer program. Bath Iron 
Works of Maine is one of two private shipyards which build this 
important Navy ship. The conference report authorizes $3.4 billion for 
four guided-missile Aegis destroyers in fiscal year 1997 and $520 
million in advanced procurement for an additional Aegis destroyer in 
fiscal year 1998. I am particularly gratified that the conference 
report includes approval for the Navy to implement a stable three-ship-
per-year procurement plan for the Aegis from 1998 through 2001. The 
plan will result in efficiencies that will save $1 billion in 
construction costs for the Aegis destroyer.
  The end of the cold war has uncapped a host of long-simmering 
regional conflicts around the globe, some of which have threatened 
important U.S. interests. Combined with the proliferation of nuclear 
and missile technology as well as chemical and biological weapons, 
these limited conflicts carry the potential for far wider consequences. 
I am pleased that the conference report includes $122 million to 
strengthen our domestic preparedness against the use of nuclear, 
chemical, or biological weapons. We must recognize that the world is 
still a dangerous place and that maintaining a high level of military 
preparedness must continue to be a national priority.
  The fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization conference report will 
maintain the strength of our national defense forces for the coming 
year. I urge that it be adopted.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I commend the fine leadership of Chairman 
Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. 
Together, they worked to achieve strong bipartisan support of this 
year's Defense authorization bill.
  The conference bill before us provides for an $11.2 billion increase 
to the President's Defense budget request. The increase, when adjusted 
for inflation, is still $7.4 billion less than last year's Defense 
budget. I wish to stress this point because the trend toward lower 
defense spending is an issue that concerns me. Given the uncertainties 
and adversaries our Nation will continue to face, slashing defense 
spending or force structure without a coherent military strategy is not 
the answer to preserving our military superiority into the 21st 
century. By the same token, the familiar path of the past--as 
convenient as it may be--will be less likely to lead us to the future 
we hope to shape. In that regard, I believe much debate remains in 
addressing the future of our national defense.
  This bill addresses many of the fundamental concerns of our military. 
It will improve the quality of life of our Armed Forces by increasing 
their pay and authorizing the construction of new barracks and military 
family housing. It also moves to address the critical modernization 
issues our military's senior leadership raised during their testimony 
before Congress this year. In that regard, the bill supports the Army's 
efforts toward battlefield digitization, modernization of tactical 
aircraft for the Air Force and Navy, and funds the modernization of our 
National Guard and Reserves.
  Also included in this bill is what I consider to be a major step 
forward in the debate over the future of our Armed Forces in meeting 
the national security requirements of our Nation. The Military Force 
Structure Review Act of 1996 is a provision I cosponsored with Senator 
Lieberman, Senator McCain, Senator Robb, and many other distinguished 
colleagues in the Senate. This act will establish an independent 
nonpartisan, nine-member National Defense Panel that will conduct a 
long-range assessment of future threats, military force structure, and 
operational concepts in support of our national security strategy. It 
is our hope that this panel will challenge the Defense Department to be 
more forward thinking as it moves beyond the Bottom-Up Review, and 
develops a strategic construct to guide our military forces into the 
next century.
  Mr. President, the bill before us addresses critical issues facing 
our men and women in uniform--improving readiness, their quality of 
life, and their need to modernize weapons systems in order to keep pace 
with rapid technological changes. As recent events have demonstrated, 
our military must be ready and capable of responding to myriad, 
uncertain threats. We must be willing to provide our military with the 
funding they need today, and tomorrow, to prepare for these unforeseen 
contingencies. I urge the final passage of the Defense authorization 
conference bill for 1997.


         Amendment to Prohibit Criminal Bomb-Making Instruction

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my great concern and 
disappointment with the conferees named by the other body who insisted 
on striking section 1088 of the Senate's DOD authorization bill. 
Section 1088, an amendment by Senator Biden and myself would have 
prohibited teaching bombmaking for criminal purposes.
  As my colleagues will recall, this amendment was accepted in the 
Senate as part of the antiterrorism bill last summer in addition to 
being part of the Senate DOD authorization bill. Regrettably, as 
happened this time, the other body dropped it from the bill.
  The bombing in Centennial Olympic Park is only the most recent pipe 
bombing. In just 10 days, from July 21 to July 31, my staff found seven 
newspaper accounts of bombing incidents.
  A 15-year-old boy, in Irving, TX, blew off three fingers with a bomb 
he learned to make using the Anarchist's Cookbook from the Internet.--
Dallas Morning News, July 26, 1996.
  A high school student from Providence, RI, assembled a foot-long bomb 
after obtaining instructions from the Internet.--Newsday, July 28, 
1996.
  A 16-year-old boy from Plainview, TX, lost a finger when a homemade 
bomb exploded. The Bomb was made using information from the Internet.--
Newsday, July 28, 1969.
  In Pennsylvania, three teenagers carrying a list of 20 ingredients 
needed to build a bomb were arrested after breaking into the Penncrest 
High School chemistry lab. They downloaded this list from the 
Internet.--Chicago Tribune, July 23, 1996.
  In Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, sheriff's officials believe information 
available over the Internet was used in a series of pipe bombings which 
destroyed four mailboxes, a guard shack and a car. Four teenagers were 
arrested in this case.--Los Angeles Times, July 27, 1996.
  In Orange County, CA, police believe four teenagers used the Internet 
to get instructions on building acid-filled bottle bombs. One of those 
bombs burned a 5-year-old boy at a school playground in April.--Los 
Angeles Times, July 27, 1996.
  A 23-year old man, from Torrance, CA, used a 10-inch-long pipe bomb 
which blew out three windows in his home. He obtained the bomb making 
instructions from a manual on homemade bombs.--Los Angeles Times, July 
27, 1996.

[[Page S10041]]

  In addition to the explicit explanations on how to make all sorts of 
bombs, the Terrorist's Handbook, downloaded by my staff from the 
Internet, also encourages criminal behavior. Let me read a section 
entitled, ``Checklist for Raids on Labs.''

       In the end, the serious terrorist would probably realize 
     that if he/she wishes to make a truly useful explosive, he or 
     she will have to steal the chemicals to make the explosive 
     from a lab.

  This section ends with the needed lists of solid and liquid chemicals 
needed to make most bombs.
  This amendment would have prohibited the teaching of bomb making if a 
person intends or knows that the bomb will be used for a criminal 
purpose. Additionally, the amendment prohibits the distribution of 
information on how to make a bomb if a person intends or knows that the 
information will be used for a criminal purpose.
  This information is not something that one would use for a legitimate 
purpose or information that can be found in a chemistry textbook on the 
back shelf of a university library.
  What my amendment targets is detailed information that is made 
available to any would-be criminal or terrorist, with the intended 
purpose of teaching someone how to blow things up in the commission of 
a serious and violent crime--to kill, injure, or destroy property.
  This provision could give law enforcement another tool in the war 
against terrorism--to combat the flow of information that is used to 
teach terrorist and other criminals how to build bombs.
  Some question the constitutionality of this provision. Common sense 
should tell us that the first amendment does not give someone the right 
to teach someone how to kill other people.
  The right to free speech in the first amendment is not absolute. 
There are several well known exceptions to the first amendment which 
limit free speech. These include: Obscenity; child pornography; clear 
and present dangers; commercial speech; defamation; speech harmful to 
children; time, place and manner restrictions; incidental restrictions; 
and radio and television broadcasting.
  I do not for 1 minute believe that the Framers of the Constitution 
meant for the first amendment to be used to protect the teaching of 
methods to injure and kill.
  However, knowing that there would be concern over the first 
amendment, I carefully crafted this amendment with constitutional 
scholars. I'd like to read you some of what they said about this 
amendment.

       I think the language . . . is about as tight as it could be 
     . . . the reasonable-knowledge, explosive materials, and 
     furtherance-of-a-criminal purpose language is all clear 
     enough; these are legal terms of art and unlikely to be found 
     void for vagueness.--Richard Delgado, University of Colorado 
     at Boulder.
       The rigorously-protected talk anticipated by the first 
     amendment is, in brief, political discourse, in the widest 
     sense of that term. This kind of talk does not include 
     routine commercial speech (including advertisements), 
     pornography and obscenity, planning for criminal activity, 
     and related forms of expression. Commonsense distinctions 
     should be apparent here. These distinctions would rule out 
     anyone's instructing others in how to make explosives, 
     especially when it is known to the instructor that the 
     explosives being talked about are to be made and used by his 
     students as part of an illegal enterprise.--George 
     Anastaplo, Loyola University of Chicago.
       Some civil libertarians attempt to immunize virtually all 
     talk from government regulation, but a stable community would 
     be difficult if not impossible if this should ever become the 
     rule. Others have gone so far as to justify actions, 
     including some violent actions, as forms of expression that 
     are entitled to freedom-of-speech protection. But even these 
     theorists are reluctant to argue that blowing up public 
     buildings should be considered a form of expression protected 
     by the First Amendment.--George Anastaplo, Loyola University 
     of Chicago.

  In today's day and age when violent crimes, bombings and terrorist 
attacks are becoming too frequent, and when technology allows for the 
distribution of bombmaking material over computers to millions of 
people across the country in a matter of seconds, some restrictions are 
appropriate. Specifically, I believe that restricting the availability 
of bombmaking information, if there is intent or knowledge that the 
information will be used for a criminal purpose, is both appropriate 
and required in today's day and age.
  My amendment to this bill was an important, balanced measure to 
confront the problems presented by today's rapid growth in technology, 
and I am extremely disappointed that it was removed during conference.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for fiscal year 1997 has the principal goal of funding our Armed Forces 
to keep them the best-trained, best-equipped, best led, and most ready 
military in the world. In large measure, the bill is well-designed to 
achieve this goal, and I support it.
  Nonetheless, I am concerned about the inclusion in this bill of over 
$11 billion in spending authority above the amount requested by the 
President. The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
testified that the budget presented by the President is enough to 
provide fully for the defense needs of the Nation during the next 
fiscal year. The $11.3 billion added to the budget far exceeds those 
needs. The authorized level is a ceiling, and I urge the President and 
the Secretary of Defense to exercise their authority to spend at a 
lower level than provided in this bill.
  On arms control, the conference took an important step by refusing to 
adopt provisions that would have infringed on the President's 
constitutional treaty-making authority, and that would also have 
undermined the ABM Treaty, the cornerstone of nuclear arms control. The 
House provisions would have undermined U.S. leadership at the very 
moment when we stand on the threshold of achieving the most important 
nuclear arms control agreement of the post-cold-war era, the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
  The bill also authorizes $365 million for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative 
Threat Reduction Programs, under which the United States works with the 
States of the former Soviet Union to reduce the nuclear threat to all 
nations. It also provides funds for new programs to improve our ability 
to prevent attacks using weapons of mass destruction.
  I am also pleased that the conferees rejected several objectionable 
provisions contained in the House version of the authorization bill. 
One House provision would have required the mandatory discharge of all 
service members who are HIV-positive. This discriminatory provision 
would have singled out HIV-positive men and women from among the much 
larger pool of service members who suffer from chronic medical 
conditions, yet who can still serve in many worthwhile capacities. The 
House provision was motivated by bigotry, and the conferees treated it 
appropriately by dropping it from the conference report.
  The conference report also excludes the House repeal of the 
Department's don't ask/don't tell policy on gays in the military. This 
provision would have reinstated the practice of antigay witch hunts 
abolished by the Clinton administration. In this instance too, the 
conferees were right to drop the House provision.
  Despite these positive elements, there are two other objectionable 
aspects to this bill that cannot be overlooked.
  First, the conference report does not adopt the Senate provision 
repealing the current ban on privately funded abortions at U.S. 
military facilities overseas. This provision would ensure that women in 
the armed forces serving overseas can exercise their constitutional 
right to choose safe abortion procedures.
  Our servicewomen should not lose rights granted by the Constitution 
when they serve their country in foreign lands. This is a basic issue 
of fairness. Women in the armed forces serve on military bases around 
the world to protect our freedoms. But they are denied access to the 
same range and quality of health services that they could obtain in the 
United States. In many countries where our forces serve, adequate care 
is difficult to obtain in the best of circumstances, and in many cases 
it is not available at all.
  Without adequate care, abortion can be a life-threatening or 
permanently disabling procedure. We can easily avoid such risks by 
making the health facilities at U.S. overseas bases available for this 
procedure and it is irresponsible not to do so.
  In addition to the health risks of the current policy, there are 
travel costs, delays, and privacy violations that women serving in the 
United States do not have to endure and should not have to endure while 
serving overseas.

[[Page S10042]]

  A woman's decision to seek an abortion is difficult and personal. It 
is unfair and unreasonable to continue to make this decision even more 
difficult and dangerous for women who serve our country overseas. 
Congress should be protecting constitutional rights of women in the 
armed forces, not turning them into second class citizens.
  Finally, I commend Chairman Thurmond and Senator Nunn for their 
leadership in achieving this bill. This is Senator Nunn's last Defense 
Authorization Act. We have served together on the Armed Services 
Committee for 14 years, and it is obvious that his reputation for 
fairness and integrity, and as the Senate's preeminent expert on 
national defense is eminently deserved. The entire Senate, the entire 
Nation, and the entire free world will miss him.
  In addition, our colleagues, Senator Exon and Senator Cohen will be 
ending their long, outstanding service on the committee at the end of 
this season. Senator Exon, as ranking member, and formerly chairman, of 
the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, has worked to defend our Nation 
against nuclear threats. In particular, his leadership on achieving a 
nuclear testing moratorium and support for a comprehensive test ban 
treaty have brought us to the threshold of an international treaty to 
ban nuclear explosions.
  As ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee, I have had the honor 
to work closely with Chairman Cohen. He is an able leader on defense 
issues, resourceful, and has worked tirelessly to ensure a strong 
national defense. I commend him for his leadership and commitment, and 
I wish him well in his career beyond the Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND. 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. THURMOND. 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. THURMOND. Mr. President, since both sides are using this quorum 
to their advantage, I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally 
divided to each side when we are in a quorum so no one side will be 
unduly punished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. 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. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield the able Senator from Oklahoma 
such time as he may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina for 
yielding to me and for the fine job that he has done in preparation on 
his committee of the Department of Defense authorization bill. It has 
been a very difficult and arduous time that we have had in trying to 
get this done with objections from the White House every step of the 
way.
  Since the beginning of our country's history, national security has 
been our Government's most solemn obligation to its citizens. In order 
to honor this obligation, sufficient resources must be given to the 
forces that protect us. These forces do not ask much of us for their 
service. But they do need a certain amount of support from their 
Government in order to carry out their duties and protect the security 
of the United States as well as maintain our status as the world's 
preeminent military power.
  In order to allow our military to honor their sworn duty, we have to 
provide them with the means to do many things. We must give them the 
authority to retain ample manpower in the form of adequate end 
strengths. Our military must have the means to recruit high-quality 
personnel to carry us into the 21st century. In addition, in order to 
keep our high-quality personnel, and protect the high quality of life 
which is so important in maintaining morale, we must provide them with 
equitable pay and benefits--including a 3-percent pay raise to protect 
against inflation--and appropriate levels of funding for the 
construction and maintenance of troop billets and military family 
housing.
  We must keep the sword sharp by providing enough resources to 
maintain current readiness, and to continue modernization efforts to 
provide the capabilities needed for future wars. Our military must also 
be given the means to field the type and quantity of weapons systems 
and equipment needed to fight and win battles decisively, with minimal 
risk to our troops, just as they did in the gulf war.
  An important lesson learned in the gulf war was that we need to be 
able to protect our troops from ballistic missiles, missiles that are 
capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction. Whether it is 
nuclear, chemical, or biological, we must protect our forces while they 
are in the field and we must protect their families at home. The way we 
do this is through the development and deployment of missile defense 
systems: land- and sea-based theater missile defense systems, which can 
protect U.S. and allied forces against cruise and ballistic missiles 
while deployed in the field; and a national missile defense system to 
defend America itself.
  The missile defense funding authorized in this bill is not sufficient 
to put in place the robust system I would like to see. It is a life 
support program, designed to keep as much of our program viable until a 
Republican President is elected. At that point, we will be able to move 
more aggressively toward building a national missile defense system, 
just as the American people expect us to.
  We know that most Americans think we have a missile defense 
capability, and we know that they are outraged and frightened when they 
learn that we do not. They hear the administration cite intelligence 
estimates to justify waiting and waiting on missile defense. But any 
American who witnessed Pearl Harbor in 1941, or the invasion of South 
Korea in 1950, or the invasion of Kuwait in 1990--and that's most of 
us, Mr. President--knows that intelligence estimates are wrong as often 
as they are right, and that even good intelligence gets misread by 
political leaders. I would rather have a defense and hope my 
intelligence was correct than have complete faith in intelligence; the 
Clinton administration apparently disagrees.
  I am particularly concerned by this emphasis on future threats 
because the administration uses it to justify doing nothing. They say 
that the missile threat isn't here yet. But isn't defense all about 
getting out in front of threats? And what about the technology that 
threatens us today? Russia and China have missiles--in the case of 
Russia, thousands of missiles--which could be accidentally fired at us 
today.
  More than 20 other nations are developing the technology. Terrorists 
and rogue nations, with enough money and some perseverance, will buy 
their way into the nuclear club. And until we get a missile defense 
system in place, there will be nothing we can do about it.
  Missile defense is complex. Sophisticated defense technology is 
seldom produced precisely on schedule. This is why we need to start 
now. We will have a national missile defense system; the question is 
whether or not it will be before or after the first time we need it.
  I have spoken about what we must provide for our military. I would 
also like to point out what burdens we should remove from them. We can 
eliminate defense spending that does not contribute directly to the 
national security of the United States; such as policing of the Olympic 
games. More importantly, we should stand back and evaluate U.S. 
involvement in nontraditional military operations, and its impact on 
combat readiness, budgeting, and our national interests. Bosnia, 
Somalia, and Haiti; these and other police actions--some of them going 
on today--drain defense funds and put a strain on personnel who are 
already being stretched beyond their breaking point.
  In this part of our foreign policy, mistakes have certainly been 
bipartisan. George Bush, a Republican President, began the Somalia 
commitment. It took a humiliating defeat and the

[[Page S10043]]

deaths of 18 Rangers in Mogadishu for us to learn about the limits of 
that humanitarian operation. Operations in Bosnia will have cost 
American taxpayers more than $3.5 billion in defense dollars if our 
troops leave by December. I say ``if'' because neither I nor anyone 
else in this body believes we will be out of Bosnia by December. The 
American people were truly deceived by the administration on this 
commitment.
  I went to Bosnia last November, before the IFOR mission began, and I 
watched experienced U.N. and NATO leaders laugh at the idea that we 
would be through in Bosnia after 1 year. One U.N. commander, General 
Huakland of Norway, said that involvement in Bosnia was like putting 
your hand in water--when you take it out, nothing is different. If the 
administration intends to keep troops in Bosnia longer, they owe it to 
us and to the American people to say so before our Presidential 
election. But I do not expect them to shoot straight on this, either.
  Some people, it seems, never seem to see a breaking point for our 
military. They say we are spending enough on defense. I have criticized 
the administration's defense priorities, but I am also dismayed by some 
of the voices I have heard in this chamber. I cannot believe that some 
of my colleagues believe their own antidefense rhetoric. Let me examine 
some of the most common attacks on this responsible defense budget that 
I've heard recently, four arguments that we hear over and over and over 
again:
  First: ``This is money the Pentagon has not asked for.'' My liberal 
friends make this statement as if they believe that the defense budget 
request is decided by admirals and generals based on what they need to 
fight and win wars.  In fact, because each of the services and the 
Department of Defense itself is run by administration-appointed 
civilians, the Pentagon's budget request is based on the 
administration's priorities. It is then modified by Congress, just like 
every other Government agency's budget.
  It is the Congress' constitutional responsibility to review and 
either increase or decrease this and all department budgets based on 
our view of the Nation's needs. Congress never blindly accepts the 
Pentagon budget request. When the Reagan administration asked for 
increases in the defense budget in the 1980's, my liberal colleagues 
never suggested that the Congress accept them without argument. That 
is exactly the kind of argument we're having today--the President 
thinks we should continue to cut defense sharply, and we disagree. It 
is our view that military spending has been cut too deeply and is well 
below the minimum required for a sound national defense.

  The fact is that the real Pentagon agrees with us. This year the four 
service chiefs, in a public repudiation of the administration, made it 
clear that they need $20 billion a year more in procurement funding 
than what the Clinton administration has requested. Each warned of the 
dire consequences of the continued aging of their weapons and 
equipment. So when we consider ``what the Pentagon asked for,'' I 
intend to listen to the chiefs who have made a career of preparing for 
war, not the President's political appointees.
  Second: ``This budget focuses on the wrong threats.'' Of course there 
are growing unconventional threats to the United States and her 
citizens, including terrorism and information warfare. In fact, some of 
our additional spending on R & D is going toward programs such as 
counter proliferation support and chemical and biological defense. But 
we should not be forced to choose which threat to remain exposed to--as 
we address these new threats, we have to still be prepared for 
conventional warfare.
  I urge my colleagues to remember that defense spending is not an 
investment, but an insurance policy. And we need different kinds of 
insurance. Their odds of having a car accident may be far greater than 
the odds that their house will burn down, but most Americans have both 
car and fire insurance. This same logic underlies our continued 
readiness on conventional threats even as we prepare for the 
unconventional threats of the future.
  Third: ``Why buy advanced weapons when American weapons are already 
the best in the world?'' It is true that American weapons are the best 
in the world today. But as threats evolve and weapons technology 
throughout the world improves, we must stay ahead. When we go to war, 
we don't want a fair fight--we want to overwhelm the enemy with speed, 
stealth, and lethality. This costs money, but what is our alternative? 
To ask our troops to get closer to the enemy, to expose themselves more 
to enemy fire, to fight longer and harder in order to win?
  We need look no further than the gulf war. We sent a half-million 
troops to the other side of the world, where they won a major land war 
in less than 100 hours of ground combat. We suffered 146 killed and 354 
wounded in that war, and mourned each and every one of them. But how 
many more would we have lost if we had not invested billions in the 
1980's in stealthy aircraft, cruise missiles, Aegis ships, and advanced 
land combat systems? We bought those weapons in the 1980's at a time 
when we also had the most technologically advanced force in the world, 
and many opponents of the Reagan budgets criticized those purchases. In 
the end, I would argue that President Bush was very lucky to fight his 
war with Ronald Reagan's military. I often wonder how a future 
President will feel about fighting a war with Bill Clinton's military.
  Fourth: ``We spend far more on defense than other countries.'' Of 
course we spend more money on defense than other countries. But there 
are two problems with this comparison: it assumes that all countries 
are equal, and it suggests that the comparison between how much the 
United States spends versus other nations, accurately predicts which 
side will prevail in conflict.
  But because of geography, all things aren't equal. We are separated 
from our potential enemies by two great oceans. And rather than 
fighting wars in our own backyard, Americans prefer to fight over 
there. Because we prefer to fight abroad, it will naturally cost us 
much more than it costs our enemies to field the same force, since we 
have to transport, sustain, and operate our fighting force in a place 
where the enemy already is.

  Each of these activities--moving, sustaining, and fighting far away--
increases the cost of our military without significantly changing the 
friendly-to-enemy force ratio. This cost is raised further if we want 
to field a force that is not just equivalent to our enemy's, but one 
that can defeat his force with minimal casualties, just as we did in 
the gulf war. The question, therefore, is not whether we will be paying 
more for our Armed Forces than our enemy does, but rather how much more 
we must pay. Is the right number three times as much, as with Russia, 
or more?
  More than 2,000 years ago, Sun Tzu said you should have five times 
the strength of an enemy to assure success. Well, there have been some 
changes in warfare since Sun Tzu's time. We now have tanks, and planes, 
and submarines, so the ratio has changed a little. And we can stand 
here and argue until we are blue in the face over what the proper force 
level is; two times, three times, five times as much as the other guy. 
But the cost of our unique geography makes any comparison between what 
we pay and what our enemies pay irrelevant. The point is: if you want 
to fight over there, and win, decisively, with minimal losses, then you 
can expect to pay many times what the enemy pays for his military. So 
this argument is cruel and invalid.
  Now, the people who make these and other statements about this 
defense bill are smart. They know that we must cross our oceans to 
fight. They know that what we consider defense spending may not be what 
our enemies consider defense spending: First, there is the high cost of 
our high-quality volunteer military: recruiting, paying, providing 
medical care, and retirement. Many people don't realize it, but two-
thirds of our defense budget is spent on paying people. Then there is 
the cost of supporting our world-wide surveillance network, our nuclear 
deterrent and so on. They know these costs are unique to the United 
States but they choose to ignore it in their arguments. Why? Because it 
supports their view of proper levels of defense spending. We can 
disagree about what it takes to field a given capability, but we should 
drop these invalid comparisons and deal with the facts.

[[Page S10044]]

  As we prepare to vote on the fiscal year 1997 Defense bill, I am 
truly concerned about the effects that decreasing levels of defense 
spending have had upon our armed forces. If the general public fully 
understood the severity of defense cuts under the Clinton 
administration, they would be outraged. In my State of Oklahoma, I have 
heard this message already. We can see the cuts all around us and it is 
time to put these reckless defense cuts to an end. History has 
demonstrated that superpower status cannot be sustained cheaply, nor 
can it be sustained by budget requests which do not provide for 
adequate funding of our forces. I am committed to maintaining America's 
superpower status, just as I am convinced that the Clinton 
administration is not.
  I was deeply disappointed by the administration's fiscal year 1997 
budget request for defense spending. The administration's fiscal year 
1997 budget request was $18.6 billion less in real terms than the level 
enacted for fiscal year 1996. In real terms, since the end of World War 
II, there have only been 5 years that the United States has spent less 
than the Clinton administration is recommending for fiscal year 1997. 
Only in fiscal year 1947, fiscal year 1948, fiscal year 1949, fiscal 
year 1950, those years immediately following World War II, and fiscal 
year 1955 immediately after the Korean war, has defense spending been 
less than the President's recommendation for this year. Not even during 
the hollow force years of the 1970s, when we could not afford spare 
parts to keep our equipment running, have we spent so little on 
defense. Clearly, it is the responsibility of Congress to address these 
shortcomings.
  Now we know that events in the Persian Gulf over the past several 
days have gotten President Clinton's attention. He appears to have 
reversed his earlier threat to veto this bill. But I wonder if he has 
considered the deeper ramifications of Saddam Hussein's recent 
activity. This latest round of cruise missiles has reminded me of two 
basic facts. One, of course, is that the Persian Gulf, like many other 
regions, remains a very unstable place. The second is that we must be 
prepared to project power on the other side of the world on very short 
notice.

  It is one thing to throw a few cruise missiles at easily identified 
desert targets. But what if more is required? What if the missiles do 
not stop Saddam's advance? Then we are right back where we were in 
1990--we must build up a force, move it to the gulf, and fight Saddam 
Hussein the old fashioned way, of course with overwhelming firepower, 
but also perhaps man to man and tank to tank.
  My friends, should this worst-case scenario arise, we will have a 
problem. Why? Because, in terms of military strength, we are not right 
back where we were in 1990. In fact, we aren't even close. Listen 
carefully! We fought Desert Storm with 11 Army divisions plus two 
larger Marine divisions, 10 Air Force tactical fighter wings, and 6 
carriers, and 100 ships from the Navy. We drew this Desert Storm force 
from an Army with 28 divisions, an Air Force with 38 tactical fighter 
wings, and a Navy with 15 carriers and 566 ships.
  But look at today's numbers: instead of 28 Army divisions in 1991, we 
have just 15 today; instead of 38 Air Force wings, we have 20 today; 
and instead of 566 ships and 15 carriers, our Navy has roughly 350 
ships and 12 carriers today. This means, for example, that while we 
used about 42 percent of the Army's combat power in 1991, we would use 
more than 70 percent today. So what would we fight a second war with?
  It only gets worse--these comparisons assume that the 
administration's budgets will hold our forces at today's levels. But 
most outside analysis--General Accounting Office, Heritage Foundation--
shows that the Clinton 5-year budget plan is more than $150 billion 
short of the amount needed to buy the force level that the President 
himself says is necessary. This is worse than a difference of opinion 
over priorities--this mismatch between what we say we will do and what 
we actually can do is dangerous. It undermines confidence among our 
allies, invites miscalculation by the Saddam Husseins of the world, and 
gives the American people a false sense of security. No government 
should do this.
  It is our duty, as U.S. Senators, to do our part in providing for our 
national security. In doing our part, we must vote for a defense bill 
which gives our military the means to do their part. Our forces do not 
ask much of us for their service, but they do need a certain amount of 
support from their Government in order to carry out their duties and 
protect the security of the United States of America.
  I feel it is time we take a more responsible approach to defending 
this Nation. I urge my colleagues to make a good start, by supporting 
the fiscal year 1997 DOD authorization bill and its attempt to slow the 
administration's deep cuts to our Nation's military modernization. Even 
this level of funding is inadequate; however, it is the best we will be 
able to do until we have a President who remembers that his first 
responsibility is not to try to change Americans' behavior with 
gimmicks in the tax code, but to protect their lives, liberty, and 
property from threats around the globe.
  As inadequate as it is, we must pass this defense authorization bill. 
It is the best we can get until we change Presidents.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend the able Senator from 
Oklahoma for the excellent remarks he just made here on the floor of 
the Senate on this bill. The Senator from Oklahoma is a member of the 
Armed Services Committee of the Senate, and a very valuable member. He 
has made outstanding contributions to our defense on that committee. 
Again, I commend him.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Defense 
authorization bill we have before us. I think it is an important step 
as we consider the appropriations bills that are left before us. I want 
to specifically commend the leadership of the Armed Services Committee, 
Senator Thurmond, the chairman, Senator Nunn, the ranking member, for 
bringing this bill to us.
  I also want to specifically thank Senator McCain who worked on the 
floor during Senate consideration of the authorization bill on both my 
amendment on B-52's and on my national missile defense amendment.
  I also want to commend those retiring members of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. Senator Bill Cohen, the chairman of the Seapower 
Subcommittee, announced he was not running for reelection. Senator 
Cohen will be missed here in the U.S. Senate. He has always been 
somebody who is respected on both sides of the aisle, someone who many 
of us look to for leadership not only on defense issues but others as 
well.
  Senator Exon of Nebraska, who is the ranking member on the Strategic 
Forces Subcommittee, and the former chairman of that subcommittee, has 
announced that he is retiring. And he, too, will be sorely missed in 
this Chamber on both sides of the aisle. And, of course, Senator Nunn, 
the ranking member and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
who has achieved respect not only in this Chamber but across the 
country as well as a defense expert.
  I think we should also recognize the outstanding staffs that have 
worked on this legislation. I want to single out Les Brownlee, the 
majority staff director, Eric Thoemmes, also on the majority side who 
was very important in working with us on the amendments that I have 
talked about, minority staff director Arnold Punaro, and minority 
strategic forces expert Bill Hoehn. All of them we worked closely with 
in the development of this legislation. We appreciate their outstanding 
service to the committee, to the Senate, and to the country.
  Mr. President, I cannot help but respond to some of what I heard from 
my colleague from Oklahoma. I am supporting this Defense authorization 
bill. I think it is the right course to take. But I must say, we ought 
to put some of this in perspective. I mean, we have to remember here 
the cold war is over. We do not have any force on the face of the globe 
that in any way rivals the

[[Page S10045]]

military strength of the United States. Thank goodness that is the 
case, but it is the case. We also have to remember that we are still 
running budget deficits in this country, $116 billion in the current 
fiscal year.

  Mr. President, we have to keep our eye on the ball. We just cannot 
spend money on everything everyone would like. And that includes our 
armed services. We have to make tough decisions. We have to stay on 
this course of deficit reduction if we are to prevent fiscal calamity 
in the future.
  It is true we have made enormous progress on the budget deficit. In 
1992 it was $290 billion. This year it is projected to be $116 billion, 
a dramatic improvement, without question. But we also know that we face 
the time bomb of the baby boom generation, and that requires us to 
continue to put spending under the microscope. We have to look at every 
part of the Federal budget, and that includes our defense budget. Let 
me just say that I think everybody in this Chamber understands that the 
pressure will continue on every part of Federal spending, and that is 
as it should be.
  Mr. President, there are some parts of this bill that I want to 
discuss specifically because I think they are critically important in 
light of what has just happened with respect to the action in Iraq.
  Section 1302 of the conference report wisely prohibits the retirement 
of any strategic systems pending Russian ratification of START II. But 
we go even further with respect to our B-52's. Those bombers must be 
retained under these provisions whether or not START II is ratified in 
recognition of their conventional capabilities.
  Mr. President, the amendment that I offered, that has been retained, 
stipulates that none of the 28 B-52's that were not funded in the 
Department of Defense request can be sent to the boneyard and that all 
must be kept fleet standard in a fully maintained attrition reserve. I 
believe the recent cruise missile strikes in Iraq bring into sharp 
focus why retention of these provisions in conference was wise.
  Mr. President, if I could turn to the charts that I have brought with 
me, I would like to just point out for a moment the B-52 advantage--
global reach, global power. Mr. President, in the recent action against 
Iraq, the B-52's responded immediately from the United States. Naval 
vessels could only participate in cruise missile strikes because they 
had completed a deployment process that can take days or even weeks. 
Other land and sea forces can take weeks or even months to arrive. The 
B-52 is able to be there in a matter of hours.
  No. 2, B-52's did not require in-theater basing. The United States 
could not use land-based forces in-theater because of political 
considerations. The B-52's can operate from the continental United 
States and from bases in Guam and Diego Garcia, thousands of miles from 
combat operations.
  No. 3, the B-52's placed few lives at risk. Air, land, and sea forces 
in forward deployments involve hundreds of thousands of personnel in 
combat operations. But more than one-quarter of the cruise missiles we 
fired in the first round were launched by only 14 Americans on two B-
52's.
  No. 4, B-52's were the least expensive system involved. Naval vessels 
and in-theater forces have large personnel complements and costly 
support requirements.
  No. 5, the B-52 was the only bomber for the mission. The B-52 is the 
only bomber that at this point carries cruise missiles.
  Mr. President, the Department of Defense suggested that we not fund 
28 of our 94 B-52's. We believe that would have been a serious mistake. 
Retirement is clearly unnecessary. These B-52's have been 
comprehensively upgraded. I have been told by the former head of Air 
Combat Command that these planes are good until the year 2035. Often we 
hear people say B-52's are older than the pilots flying them. Mr. 
President, that is with respect to the name plate on the B-52's. Many 
of these airframes were, it is true, constructed in the 1960's, but 
what people forget, there have been billions of dollars of upgrades to 
these planes, including new skins, new everything.
  Mr. President, General Loh, head of the Air Combat Command, told me 
these planes are good until the year 2035 because, if you look at the 
landings, you look at the flying hours, there are far fewer landings 
and flying hours on these airframes than on commercial planes. As a 
result, these planes, with all of the upgrades that have been done, are 
good until the year 2035. We should not be sending a single one of them 
to the bone yard.
  Mr. President, in addition, reengining, the proposal by Boeing, could 
produce $6 billion in savings, enough to finance retention of the 28 
that were unfunded in the DOD budget. This makes great sense to 
reengine these planes, put on commercial engines that will experience 
some 40 percent in fuel savings, make these planes even more responsive 
and even longer lasting in our force inventory.
  I believe that retirement of any of our B-52's would be ill-advised. 
I want to salute the committee for taking this position, as well. I 
believe it is unwise to retire B-52's for the following reasons:
  No. 1, it endangers arms control. A B-52 retirement reduces Russia's 
incentive to ratify START II. We ought not to be taking down strategic 
systems before there is a Russian ratification of START II. That makes 
no sense. I am very pleased that under the leadership of Senator 
Thurmond and Senator Nunn, the committee has taken that position. That 
is a wise and prudent position. The committee ought to be saluted for 
taking it.
  No. 2, retirement of these strategic systems now preempts the 1997 
defense studies. We have major studies underway, Mr. President, to 
determine the appropriate force structure for the future. We ought not 
to preempt those studies now.
  No. 3, to retire B-52's would sacrifice a superior global bomber. B-
52's have a longer range than the B-1 or the B-2. They have the 
greatest versatility because they are fully dual capable and the only 
bomber with cruise missiles allowing standoff operations, as we saw in 
the Iraqi confrontation.
  No. 4, they have the largest total payload of any bomber.
  No. 5, they are the least costly to maintain and operate.
  Finally, Mr. President, and perhaps most important, to reduce any of 
our bombers would only add to the existing bomber gap. Some have asked 
me, what do I mean by bomber gap? Mr. President, let me make clear, the 
Bottom Up Review said we need at least 100 deployable bombers--100 
deployable bombers--in order to prevail in two MRC's simultaneously.
  Mr. President, today we only have 92 deployable bombers, 92 
deployable; the Bottom Up Review said we need 100. Mr. President, to 
send any bombers to the bone yard in this circumstance makes very 
little sense.

  I might add that I believe the new efforts that are underway to 
evaluate our strategic systems will disclose that 100 deployable 
bombers are not sufficient. In fact, I believe 100 deployable bombers 
is sadly insufficient to meet the requirements of two MRC's. We will 
have a chance at a later time to go into the assumptions that have been 
made to establish the 100 deployable bombers as the appropriate target.
  Mr. President, it certainly makes no sense to be adding to the bomber 
gap at a time when, I think, it is in great question whether or not 100 
deployable bombers is sufficient to meet the contingency of two MRC's.
  Let me just close, Mr. President, by again thanking the committee 
leadership and the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee for 
working with us to put together the Conrad amendment that calls for 
retaining our B-52 force and also for the national missile defense 
provisions that are included in this conference report. I want to thank 
the chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond. I want to thank the 
ranking member, Senator Nunn, and I want to thank their very able and 
professional staffs for the assistance they have provided to us. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I believe the vote on this bill is set 
for 2:15 tomorrow; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. THURMOND. I now 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.
  Mr. THURMOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S10046]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Arnold Punaro

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to pay 
tribute to Arnold Punaro, the minority staff director.
  At the close of this session, Arnold Punaro will be leaving the 
Senate after almost 24 years of service, both on the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and on Senator Nunn's personal staff.
  During his service on the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Punaro served 
in the following positions: 1983 to 1987, minority staff director; 1987 
to 1995, staff director; 1996 to the present, minority staff director.
  Throughout his tenure on the committee, Mr. Punaro played a key 
supporting role in virtually all legislation that the Armed Services 
Committee considered, including the Goldwater-Nichols legislation and 
creation of the Special Operation Command.
  In addition to his superb work on the Armed Services Committee, Mr. 
Punaro serves in the Marine Corps Reserves. He currently holds the rank 
of brigadier general and is commanding general of the Marine Corps 
Reserves Support Command.
  Mr. President, I know I will be joined by all members of the Armed 
Services Committee in thanking Mr. Punaro, for his dedication and hard 
work on behalf of our Armed Forces and for the service he has rendered 
to our Nation.
  Mr. President, I wish him and his family continued success in the 
years ahead.
  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. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor 
privileges be granted to Marine Corps Lt. Mark Kerber. He is currently 
part of a fellowship program assigned to my office. He is a recent 
graduate with distinction from the U.S. Naval Academy and next week 
will actually be headed to basic training at Quantico and then the 
flight school at Pensacola.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am 
pleased to rise in support of the 1997 Defense authorization conference 
report.
  The conference report takes a number of steps to strengthen our 
Nation's defenses and improve the quality of life for our brave men and 
women in uniform.
  The conference report authorizes a 3-percent pay raise for American 
military personnel and a 4.6-percent increase in the basic allowance 
for housing, an issue on which we have spent a great deal of time and 
we know there certainly is a need.
  The conference report provides $466 million for the construction of 
new barracks, dormitories, and family housing.
  The bill also continues efforts to address the No. 1 problem 
identified by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the lack of modernization of 
our military equipment. The bill provides for increased procurement of 
ships and planes, missiles, trucks, communications systems, and night 
vision devices that our forces need to maintain the qualitative edge 
against possible foes.
  The bill also increases funding for operations and maintenance to 
provide training needed to keep our military forces ready for action.
  The conference report also rectifies a past wrong by authorizing the 
President of the United States to award the Congressional Medal of 
Honor to seven African-American soldiers who were denied this award 
after World War II. While six of these awards will be awarded 
posthumously, the one living recipient, Vernon Baker, is a resident of 
St. Maries, ID. I have spoken to Mr. Baker, and I can tell you of the 
great pride that he shares in knowing he will receive that award.
  The bill also authorizes $5.5 billion, an increase of $100 million 
above the President's request, for environmental cleanup and waste 
management at Department of Energy facilities around the country.
  The conference report reduces redundancies in existing law and 
streamlines the regulatory process to expedite the opening of the Waste 
Isolation pilot project [WIPP] facility in the State of New Mexico. The 
bill also provides additional funding can make sure the WIPP facility 
can accept waste on time.
  The bill also provides greater authority for site managers at DOE 
facilities to move funds from different accounts to address problems 
developed during the fiscal year. This authority was requested by site 
managers at a hearing that I chaired earlier this year. We expect this 
increased efficiency to save the taxpayers money.
  The conference report also establishes technology demonstration zones 
at major DOE facilities to allow site managers to apply new 
technologies to the nuclear cleanup problems across the Department of 
Energy complex.
  The conference report also authorizes major privatization efforts at 
the Hanford site and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory to pay 
private contractors for the amount of waste treated.
  At my request, the conference report creates a high-level commission 
to address the problem of recruiting the next generation of nuclear 
weapons scientists. This is another problem identified during this 
year's hearings.
  The conference report before the Senate is a good bill that reflects 
reasonable compromises between the House, the Senate, and the 
administration. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report. 
I was pleased to hear the President plans to sign this important piece 
of legislation.
  I thank the able chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator 
Strom Thurmond, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Nunn, for 
their counsel and guidance throughout this difficult process. As 
always, Chairman Thurmond's tireless leadership and his determination 
have resulted in a strong Defense authorization bill reaching the 
Senate floor. Just as he has done through so many different periods of 
this Nation's need when we have turned to strong individuals, once 
again he is leading us, as he has done so many times in service to the 
country.
  In addition, this is Senator Nunn's last defense authorization 
conference report. I feel honored to have served on the same committee 
as Senator Nunn. The knowledge and skill of the senior Senator from 
Georgia will be missed, and the whole Senate and the Nation will feel 
his absence.
  This also will be the last conference report that will include the 
Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen. I can tell you, there have been 
tremendous insights and improvements that he has made throughout this 
process. Senator Cohen will be missed.
  The Senator from Nebraska, Jim Exon, with whom I had the pleasure of 
serving--we had a particular trip in Russia, where we spoke to those 
that head up the nuclear defenses there in Russia. Again, Senator Jim 
Exon will be missed as well.
  Also, I acknowledge the contributions of Senator Sheila Frahm, the 
Senator from Kansas, in her tenure in serving on the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. We wish her the very best with her future as well.
  In conclusion, as we saw last week in Iraq, despite the end of the 
cold war, the world remains a dangerous place. American military power 
is required to ensure stability and protect democracy and free trade. 
There is no substitute for a strong America. The pending conference 
report will ensure our military forces can respond to any threat to 
U.S. national interests. When we think about people in the military 
services, such as Lt. Mark Kerber, we know it is our duty to make sure 
they have the best training, equipment, and facilities so, when they 
respond to any crisis anywhere in the world on behalf of this Nation, 
we know they are doing it as the best.

[[Page S10047]]

  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. THURMOND. 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 distinguished Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. I want to express my appreciation to the able Senator 
from Idaho for the kind words he had to say about my service as 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Senator Kempthorne has been a 
devoted, able member of that committee and has rendered the defense of 
this country great service. Our country is indebted to him for all that 
he has done to promote a strong defense in this Nation. Again, I am 
proud of his friendship and proud of his service to his Nation.
  Mr. President, I understand this has been cleared on the other side 
of the aisle. I have been authorized to yield back all debate time on 
the Defense authorization conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.

                          ____________________