[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 95 (Tuesday, July 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6974-S6989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 3 o'clock having arrived, under
the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 88,
S. 936, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 1998: Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Pete
Domenici, R.F. Bennett, Dan Coats, John Warner, Phil Gramm,
Thad Cochran, Larry E. Craig, Ted Stevens, Tim Hutchinson,
Jon Kyl, Rick Santorum, Mike DeWine, and Spencer Abraham.
Vote
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on S. 936, the Department of Defense authorization bill,
shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are required. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats],
the Senator from Akansas [Mr. Hutchinson], the Senator from Vermont
[Mr. Jeffords], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], the Senator from
Delaware [Mr. Roth], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith] are
necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the
Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], and the Senator from Maryland
[Ms. Mikulski] are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 161 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--45
Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Cochran
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--9
Biden
Coats
Hutchinson
Jeffords
Landrieu
McCain
Mikulski
Roth
Smith (OR)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
45. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The pending question is amendment No. 666, offered by the Senator
from Minnesota.
Mr. LEVIN. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 658, As Modified
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to and will speak briefly on
an issue that I think is of significance and importance as we are
addressing the defense authorization bill, and that is the amendment of
the Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar.
I urge that the Senate support his amendment to restore the cuts made
in the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction programs in the
Department of Defense and related nuclear material security programs in
the Department of Energy. The funds spent on these programs are the
most important cost-effective contribution to our national security
that we can make.
Today, and for the foreseeable future, the greatest threat to
national security involves potential terrorist acts using weapons of
mass destruction. And it is ironic that after living for 40 years under
the specter of a cold war nuclear holocaust, the prospect of a nuclear
explosion taking place within the United States has actually increased
since the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. This is the ominous
view of both the intelligence community and the Department of Defense.
Any defense bill we enact must deal responsibly with this threat.
We have taken significant steps to do so in recent years. In 1991,
Senator Nunn and Senator Lugar initiated the Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program. The basic concept of that program and the nuclear
materials safety programs at the Department of Energy is that paying
for the destruction and safeguarding of nuclear weapons in the states
of the former Soviet Union increases the security of America itself.
The accomplishments of these programs offer convincing evidence that
the Nunn-Lugar program works. The Defense Department has already helped
to fund the elimination of 6,000 nuclear warheads in nations of the
former Soviet Union. Never again will these weapons threaten the United
States.
The funds for the Nunn-Lugar and related programs are the most cost-
effective dollars spent in the entire defense budget.
They support the complete destruction of nuclear weapons in the
nations of the former Soviet Union.
They strengthen border controls to prevent the illegal transport of
nuclear bomb-making materials.
They support efforts to protect these materials from theft at their
storage sites or during transport.
They provide employment and economic incentives for former Soviet
weapons scientists to avoid the temptation that they will sell their
know-how to buyers from nations and organizations that support
international terrorism.
They fund cooperative efforts to match U.S. commercial applications
with the Russian defense industry.
Since these programs began, Congress has fully funded the
administration's budget requests until this year. The current committee
bill reduces the President's request by $135 million. The bill takes
$60 million from the Defense Department's Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program, which the department intended to use to help Ukraine destroy
its SS-24 intercontinental ballistic missiles.
We specifically encouraged the new Government of Ukraine to take this
step because these missiles pose a clear and present danger to our
national security. It is a costly operation, but few are more
worthwhile. It is imperative that we maintain fully funded and well-
structured programs to deal with all aspects of this serious threat.
The initiatives undertaken in this area by the Department of Energy
are equally essential. The International Nuclear Safety Program
upgrades safety devices on Chernobyl-era nuclear reactors. Yet, its
funding has been cut by $50 million.
The Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting Program supports
efforts to identify and store the nuclear materials that are most
likely to be stolen. Yet, its funding is cut by $25 million.
Under these two programs, the Department of Energy has succeeded in
making tons of nuclear weapons materials secure, primarily plutonium
and highly enriched uranium. Previously, these materials had not been
protected by even the most elementary security precautions. These
materials posed grave threats to our national security, and they still
do.
Alarming public reports in recent years have mentioned cases where
nuclear materials were intercepted at border crossings. We can only
wonder how many shipments have gone undetected at border crossings and
whether terrorists even now have custody of these materials.
The National Research Council released a report this spring on U.S.
proliferation policy and the former Soviet Union. Its first and
strongest recommendation is full funding for the Materials Protection,
Control, and Accounting Program.
[[Page S6975]]
The report goes on to express strong support for the overall
Departments of Defense and Energy CTR Programs. But the material
protection program was specifically singled out as the most important
area for additional funding.
The reason is clear. Bomb-grade nuclear weapon material poses so
great a threat to national security that the United States should do
all we can to work with Russia to guarantee these materials are safely
stored--no ifs, ands, or buts. There is no margin for error, none
whatsoever.
The design and manufacture of a crude homemade nuclear weapon is a
relatively easy task if the needed uranium or plutonium is available.
It takes just 10 pounds of plutonium--about a single handful--to
utterly destroy any American city.
Without a major ongoing effort to identify, catalog, transport,
store, and eventually reprocess or destroy Russia's nuclear material,
it is just a matter of time before some terrorist group becomes a
nuclear power. That is why these programs are so important. That is
what restoring these funds is all about. The last thing we need is to
look the other way as the next Timothy McVeigh prepares to destroy an
entire American city.
Over the years we have spent billions of dollars building our nuclear
weapons and implementing strategies to prevent nuclear war. Now when a
relatively small sum of money can deal with this current threat, how
can we afford not to? If a terrorist explodes a nuclear weapon in the
United States, we may well never know who to retaliate against.
It may already be too late. But we hope and pray it is not. We must
do more--much more--to see that the current loose controls over nuclear
weapons and bomb-making materials in the nations of the former Soviet
Union do not result in a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States
or any other nation.
There will be no comfort in saying the morning after, ``If only we
had done more.'' Now is the time to do more. Restoring these funds is
the indispensable first step toward doing more, doing it, and doing it
as soon as possible.
I commend the Senator from Indiana for his leadership on this issue.
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, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl
and Senator Coverdell be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 420
offered by Senator Cochran.
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. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand, and I have been briefed that
there will be an amendment proposed on behalf of several Senators to
increase the amount for National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunity
Program to $48 million and to provide a substitute for the provision
extending and revising the authority of the program.
Mr. President, I strongly object to this amendment. It is already at
$20 million. The fundamental question here arises when we are
complaining about the fact that there is not enough money for flying
time, there is not enough money for pay raises, there is not enough
money for quality of life for men and women who are in the military who
are serving, and there is not enough money for modernization of the
force--and every military leader will tell you that--and now we want to
add $28 million to a program which, really, the National Guard has no
business being in. It has no business being in a Civilian Youth
Opportunity Program.
Oftentimes we refer to the job and role of our Founding Fathers, Mr.
President. Who in our Founding Fathers thought that the job of the
National Guard was to administer Civilian Youth Opportunity Programs?
The National Guard, I am told by my colleagues who are in areas where
there have been floods, devastation, and other disasters, has its hands
full. The National Guard has a great deal of difficulty in maintaining
training levels of efficiency. We found that out during Operation
Desert Storm. Now we want to add $28 million to a program that the
National Guard has no business being in.
Mr. President, I am sure when we have a recorded vote on this--and I
will demand a recorded vote--that it will carry overwhelmingly, just
like the military construction appropriations bill that is coming
before us will carry overwhelmingly that has billions of dollars of
wasteful and pork barrel spending, but sooner or later, sooner or
later, Mr. President, the American people are going to be fed up. They
are going to stop supporting spending for national defense and they
will stop because they see this kind of unnecessary and wasteful and
pork barrel spending.
I read in the newspaper today the military construction bill has some
$900 million additional for projects that the administration or the
Department of Defense could not find anywhere on their priority list--
nowhere to be found on their priority list as being necessary, but they
also happen to match up to districts of powerful Members of the other
body's committee.
It has to stop, Mr. President. A lot of people are getting tired of
it. I am sure, as has happened on many other occasions, that when we
have a recorded vote on this, it will carry overwhelmingly, but sooner
or later we will ask ourselves the question, When are we going to spend
the money where the priorities are, according to the leaders of the
military, both military and civilian? It certainly isn't in this
program. Is $28 million a lot of money? Certainly not in this entire
bill. But it is symptomatic of the problem that has afflicted defense
spending for too long and is becoming epidemic. The House
overwhelmingly wants to spend what potentially would be $27 billion
additionally for B-2 bombers that they can't find a military leader who
will say we need. $27 billion. We hear time after time that we are not
modernizing the force, that we are losing quality men and women out of
the military, we are having to lower our recruitment standards in order
to meet our quotas. What are we going to do to solve it? Spend $27
billion on B-2 bombers, add $28 million to the National Guard, and the
pork barrel list goes on and on and on.
I am telling you, from talking to my constituents, people are getting
a little weary of it, Mr. President. So when this amendment comes up, I
tell the chairman and the Democrat manager, I will want to talk again
on it, not because it is a lot of money--$28 million is not a lot of
money in a defense bill--but it is the wrong thing to do. It is wrong
what we are doing in military construction in the bill and wrong what
we are doing authorizing projects and programs that we don't need, when
at the same time there are severe and fundamental problems in the
military that are not being addressed, which means that the Congress of
the United States isn't performing its responsibilities in a mature
fashion and in a way that will provide for the national security of
this country.
I yield the floor.
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.
Amendment No. 744
(Purpose: To extend the chiropractic health care demonstration Project
for two years)
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I offer an amendment that would extend
the Chiropractic Health Care Demonstration Project for 2 years.
Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other
side.
Mr. President, I urge that the Senate adopt this amendment.
[[Page S6976]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an
amendment numbered 744.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 708. CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) Two-Year Extension.--Subsection (b) of section 731 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2809; 10 U.S.C. 1092 note) is
amended by striking out ``1997'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``1999''.
(b) Expansion to at Least Three Additional Treatment
Facilities.--Subsection (a)(2) of such section is amended by
striking out ``not less than 10'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``the National Naval Medical Center, the Walter Reed
Army Medical Center, and not less than 11 other''
(c) Reports.--Subsection (c) of such section is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee
on National Security of'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph (3):
``(3)(A) Not later than January 30, 1998, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the committees referred to in
paragraph (1) a report that identifies the additional
treatment facilities designated to furnish chiropractic care
under the program that were not so designated before the
report required by paragraph (1) was prepared, together with
the plan for the conduct of the program at the additional
treatment facilities.
``(B) Not later than May 1, 1998, the Secretary of Defense
shall modify the plan for evaluating the program submitted
pursuant to paragraph (2) in order to provide for the
evaluation of program at all of the designated treatment
facilities, including the treatment facilities referred to in
subparagraph (B).''; and
(4) in paragraph (4), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by
striking out ``The Secretary'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``Not later than May 1, 2000, the Secretary''.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I propose an amendment that would extend
the Chiropractic Health Care Demonstration Program for 2 years and
would include the National Capitol region as a demonstration site.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995,
Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct a demonstration
program to determine whether chiropractic health care should be
provided as part of the military health care system. The legislation
requires a comprehensive evaluation of the program. Representatives of
the chiropractic health care community are required to be included in
the evaluation process.
The National Capitol region was not one of the 10 sites selected to
be part of the demonstration. My amendment would expand the
demonstration to include the National Capitol region. In order to
include the experiences of chiropractic care in the National Capitol
region in the evaluation, I propose to extend the demonstration program
for 2 additional years. I am confident that this amendment will result
in a better evaluation of the chiropractic care demonstration.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 744) was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 648
(Purpose: To require a report on Department of Defense policies and
programs to promote healthy lifestyles among members of the Armed
Forces and their dependents)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I offer an
amendment No. 648 that would require a report on the Department of
Defense policies and programs to promote healthy lifestyles among
members of the Armed Forces and their dependents.
I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other side.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we favor the amendment.
We urge it be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Bingaman,
proposes an amendment numbered 648.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 306, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
SEC. 1041. REPORT ON POLICIES AND PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE HEALTHY
LIFESTYLES AMONG MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
AND THEIR DEPENDENTS.
(a) Report.--Not later than March 30, 1998, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives a report on the effectiveness of the
policies and programs of the Department of Defense intended
to promote healthy lifestyles among members of the Armed
Forces and their dependents.
(b) Covered Policies and Programs.--The report under
subsection (a) shall address the following:
(1) Programs intended to educate members of the Armed
Forces and their dependents about the potential health
consequences of the use of alcohol and tobacco.
(2) Policies of the commissaries, post exchanges, service
clubs, and entertainment activities relating to the sale and
use of alcohol and tobacco.
(3) Programs intended to provide support to members of the
Armed Forces and dependents who elect to reduce or eliminate
their use of alcohol or tobacco.
(4) Any other policies or programs intended to promote
healthy lifestyles among members of the Armed Forces and
their dependents.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we urge the Senate adopt the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 648) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 745
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Army to donate excess
furniture, and other excess property, of closed Army chapels to
religious organizations that have suffered damage or destruction of
property as a result of acts of arson or terrorism)
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Helms, I offer an
amendment which would authorize the Secretary of the Army to transfer
excess religious articles formerly in chapels of the Department of the
Army to churches that have been damaged or destroyed as a result of an
act of arson or terrorism.
Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other
side.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has, indeed, been cleared,
and we support it.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge the Senate adopt this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr.
Helms, proposes an amendment numbered 745.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1075. DONATION OF EXCESS ARMY CHAPEL PROPERTY TO
CHURCHES DAMAGED OR DESTROYED BY ARSON OR OTHER
ACTS OF TERRORISM.
(a) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, the Secretary of the Army may donate property described
in subsection (b) to an organization described in section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is a
religious organization in order to assist the organization in
restoring or replacing property of the organization that has
been damaged or destroyed as a result of an act of arson or
terrorism, as determined pursuant to procedures prescribed by
the Secretary.
(b) Property Covered.--The property authorized to be
donated under subsection (a) is furniture and other property
that is in, or
[[Page S6977]]
formerly in, chapels or being closed and is determined as
being excess to the requirements of the Army. No real
property may be donated under this section.
(c) Donees Not To Be Charged.--No charge may be imposed by
the Secretary on a donee of property under this section in
connection with the donation. However, the donee shall defray
any expense for shipping or other transportation of property
donated under this section from the location of the property
when donated to any other location.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, when the Pilgrims boarded the Mayflower and
set sail for a new world, they were searching for a land where they
would be free to worship God as they wished. Our Founding Fathers,
inspired by their example, incorporated the principle of religious
freedom into our national fabric. The importance of this principle to
our national character is emphasized by its honored place in the first
clause of our Bill of Rights which reads ``Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.''
In spite of this protection, some citizens have, at times, sought to
deny others the right to worship. In extreme cases, this intolerance
has turned to violence as houses of worship were desecrated by fire or
vandalism. Last month, the National Church Arson Task Force released a
report that found no evidence of a nationwide conspiracy behind the
fires. I never believed there was a conspiracy but that finding does
not diminish the suffering of the congregations in my home State and
across the United States who have been victimized in these incidents.
Let there be no doubt, Mr. President, no act is more despicable than
the desecration of a house of worship. It is fitting that the
perpetrators of such a heinous crime be apprehended and prosecuted to
the full extent of the law, I commend the Federal, State, and local law
enforcement officials who work diligently to investigate these
shameless acts and to prevent their recurrence.
Mr. President, while stories of church burnings are no longer on the
front page of every newspaper or the lead story on the evening news,
the victims remain. The pastor of one of those congregations, Pastor
Brenda Stevenson of the New Outreach Christian Center in Charlotte,
which was destroyed by an arsonist in 1995, recently wrote me about her
church's effort to rebuild. She informed me that her congregation was
able to rebuild with the help of the Christian Coalition's Samaritan
project and the Save the Churches fund but that further help was
needed. Specifically, Pastor Stevenson requested that excess religious
property, formerly used in closed military chapels, be made available
to churches that have suffered these terrible acts.
I am told that precisely such property has been found at Fort Bragg,
NC, where several old wooden chapels were closed as part of a
consolidation. The approximately $25,000 worth of property, including
65 oak pews, 3 altars, 2 pulpits, communion sets, and other religious
property, has been declared excess to the needs of Fort Bragg and would
ordinarily be sold at auction to the highest bidder. Similar property
may also be available at other Army installations.
I agree with Pastor Stevenson that the Army should be allowed to
donate this surplus property to some of the churches damaged or
destroyed as a result of arson or terrorism. The amendment I am
introducing gives the Secretary of the Army authority to donate such
property as it becomes available at Army installations.
Mr. President, I know this matter may seem of little consequence to
some considering that Congress is considering a budget in excess of
$1.7 trillion dollars. However, the gift of this furniture and
religious property can mean a very great deal to congregations such as
the New Outreach Christian Center that are struggling to rebuild.
Moreover, it is appropriate that Fort Bragg, home of the XVIII
Airborne Corps, 82d Airborne Division, and special operations force,
which have done so much to protect our liberties abroad, be permitted
to contribute to the defense of those liberties at home. I invite my
colleagues to join in support of this bill so that some small measure
of relief can be provided to these victims.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Pastor
Stevenson's letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
New Outreach Christian Center,
Charlotte, NC, June 6, 1997.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Helms: The New Outreach Christian Center was
desecrated by an arson March 14, 1995. This horrific act
shocked our community and the county. With the assistance of
the ``Save the Churches Fund'' grant of the Christian
Coalition we were able to rebuild our house of worship.
The Samaritan Project, an outgrowth of the ``Save the
Churches Fund'' has notified us that the military may have
furniture, materials and equipment which could be of further
help to our church. I ask that legislation be initiated that
would allow churches that have been harmed by acts of
violence to receive the items from these closed chapels. This
could assist my church and others throughout the country.
Please move forward on this issue. As a country we cannot
accept violence against any house of worship, and must unite
to help rebuild them. If there are any questions please call
Pastor Brenda Stevenson.
Thank you and God Bless,
Brenda Stevenson,
Pastor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 745) was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 649
(Purpose: To provide for increased administrative flexibility and
efficiency in the management of the Junior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps)
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I offer an
amendment numbered 649 that would provide for increased administrative
flexibility and efficiency in the management of the Junior ROTC
Program.
I think this amendment has been cleared by the other side.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment is accepted on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Bingaman,
proposes an amendment numbered 649.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following:
SEC. . FLEXIBILITY IN MANAGEMENT OF JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS'
TRAINING CORPS.
(a) Authority of the Secretary of Defense.--Chapter 102 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``Sec. 2032. Responsibility of the Secretary of Defense
``(a) Coordination by Secretary of Defense.--The Secretary
of Defense shall coordinate the establishment and maintenance
of Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps units by the
Secretaries of the military departments in order to maximize
enrollment in the Corps and to enhance administrative
efficiency in the management of the Corps. The Secretary may
impose such requirements regarding establishment of units and
transfer of existing units as the Secretary considers
necessary to achieve the objectives set forth in the
preceding sentence.
``(b) Consideration of new School Openings and
Consolidations.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall take into consideration openings of new
schools, consolidation of schools, and the desirability of
continuing the opportunity for participation in the Corps by
participants whose continued participation would otherwise be
adversely affected by new school openings and consolidations
of schools.
``(c) Funding.--If amounts available for the Junior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps are insufficient for taking actions
considered necessary by the Secretary under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall seek additional funding for units from
the local educational administration agencies concerned.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``2032. Responsibility of the Secretary of Defense.''.
[[Page S6978]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 649) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 746
(Purpose: To require the procurement of recycled copier paper by the
Department of Defense)
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Jeffords, I offer
an amendment that would codify and extend the Executive Order 12873
requirement regarding Federal agency use of recycled content paper by
providing for increased Department of Defense purchases of such paper
for copy machines.
Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other
side. I urge the Senate to adopt it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on this
side. We support it. It is a good amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr.
Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 746.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 84, after line 23, add the following:
SEC. 340. PROCUREMENT OF RECYCLED COPIER PAPER.
(a) Requirement.--(1) Except as provided in subsection (b),
a department or agency of the Department of Defense may not
procure copying machine paper after a date set forth in
paragraph (2) unless the percentage of post-consumer recycled
content of the paper meets the percentage set forth with
respect to such date in that paragraph.
(2) The percentage of post-consumer recycled content of
paper required under paragraph (1) is as follows:
(A) 20 percent as of January 1, 1998.
(B) 30 percent as of January 1, 1999.
(C) 50 percent as of January 1, 2004.
(b) Exceptions.--A department or agency may procure copying
machine paper having a percentage of post-consumer recycled
content that does not meet the applicable requirement in
subsection (a) if--
(1) the cost of procuring copying machine paper under such
requirement would exceed by more than 7 percent the cost of
procuring copying machine paper having a percentage of post-
consumer recycled content that does not meet such
requirement;
(2) copying machine paper having a percentage of post-
consumer recycled content meeting such requirement is not
reasonably available within a reasonable period of time;
(3) copying machine paper having a percentage of post-
consumer recycled content meeting such requirement does not
meet performance standards of the department or agency for
copying machine paper; or
(4) in the case of the requirement in paragraph (2)(C) of
that subsection, the Secretary of Defense makes the
certification described in subsection (c).
(c) Certification of Inability To Meet Goal in 2004.--If
the Secretary determines that any department or agency of the
Department will be unable to meet the goal specified in
subsection (a)(2)(C) by the date specified in that
subsection, the Secretary shall certify that determination to
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives. The Secretary shall submit such
certification, if at all, not later than January 1, 2003.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, more than 20 years ago Congress passed
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to promote Government
purchases of products made from recycled materials. Since then, State
and local governments throughout the country have enacted similar
policies. Ten years ago, only 13 States and a handful of local
governments had buy recycled laws. Today, at least 45 States and more
than 500 local governments have established legal requirements to
purchase recycled content products. In 1993, the administration issued
Executive Order 12873 which reinforced the principle of increasing the
Federal Government's use of recycled-content products, especially paper
products.
Yet in 1996, the Department of Defense, the single largest consumer
of copy paper in the world, had a compliance record of only 14 percent
regarding its procurement of copy paper. Although DOD should be
complimented for recently volunteering to buy only recycled-content
copy paper, its decision was due to the General Services
Administration's initiative to set the price of recycled paper at 5
cents cheaper than virgin paper. History leads us to assume that DOD
will revert to the policy of buying virgin paper should the price shift
a nickel.
Well, Mr. President, price is important, but it is only one factor in
the equation. As the largest user, DOD must be the role model for other
Government agencies and comply with the intent of Congress and the
administration. This amendment affords DOD the flexibility of buying
nonrecycled paper if the price differential is unreasonable compared to
virgin paper, while defining the term ``unreasonable'' as ``greater
than 7 percent''.
Additionally, the intent of this amendment is to cause Defense
Department procurement offices to buy copy paper in an environmentally
responsible manner and is not meant to place unreasonable constraints
on the process. It, therefore, contains provisions which allow
procuring agencies to choose not to buy the recycled paper if the
product is unavailable within a reasonable period of time, or if the
product does not meet reasonable performance standards.
Finally, this amendment builds on the intent of the executive order
and extends it into the 21st century. Under this amendment, the
required postconsumer content will rise to 50 percent in 2004. This
initiative is based upon ongoing technological advances within the
paper industry and the expectation that they will push down the cost of
recycled paper in future years. If DOD cannot meet this requirement, a
provision is included in the amendment which will allow them to report
to Congress for purposes of gaining a deferment.
Mr. President, only through legislative action can we ensure that DOD
will continue to shoulder its environmental responsibilities and serve
as the role model it must be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 746) was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 747
(Purpose: To improve the provisions on depot inventory, and financial
management reform)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Harkin and Durbin, I
offer an amendment which would modify language in the bill addressing
inventory management, depot management, and financial management
issues.
I understand this amendment has been cleared on the other side.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment is cleared on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Harkin, for
himself and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 747.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 59, after line 14, add the following new paragraph
(3):
``(3) The Secretary of a military department may conduct a
pilot program, consistent with applicable requirements of
law, to test any practices referred to in paragraph (2) that
the Secretary determines could improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of depot-level operations, improve the support
provided by depot-level activities for the armed forces user
of the services of such activities for the armed forces user
of the services of such activities, and enhance readiness by
reducing the time that it takes to repair equipment.''
On page 101, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
``(3) For the purposes of this section, the term `best
commercial inventory practice' includes a so-called prime
vendor arrangement and any other practice that the Director
determines will enable the Defense Logistics Agency to reduce
inventory levels and holding costs while improving the
responsiveness of the supply system to user needs.''
On page 268, line 8, strike out ``(L)'' and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
``(L) Actions that can be taken to ensure that each
comptroller position and each comparable position in the
Department of Defense, whether filled by a member of the
[[Page S6979]]
Armed Forces or a civilian employee, is filled by a person
who, by reason of education, technical competence, and
experience, has the core competencies for financial
management.
``(M)''.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment with Senator Richard
Durbin regarding some much needed reforms in the way the Department of
Defense manages its inventory of goods, as well as its financial
management systems. Our amendment modifies some very useful language
that is included in the Senate Armed Services Committee version of the
Defense Authorization bill.
I first would like to applaud the members of the Armed Services
Committee for including provisions in the bill that moves the DOD
toward better management of its finances and inventories. These
provisions are important steps toward fixing some critical problems. We
believe that our amendment adds a few simple improvements to the
committee provisions.
One element of our amendment requires that the DOD take actions to
ensure that its comptrollers are adequately trained. Afterall, the
comptroller is the key technical expert who overseas and manages the
day-to-day financial operations. For example, the comptroller of the
Pacific Fleet, billeted for a Navy captain, is responsible for the
financial management and financial reporting of an annual budget of
about $5 billion, comparable in size to a Fortune 500 corporation.
Earlier this year, I released a General Accounting Office report,
entitled ``Financial Management: Opportunities to Improve Experience
and Training of Key Navy Comptrollers.'' The GAO report states that the
Navy's financial and accounting systems have been substantially
hampered by the fact that the Navy has no specific career path for
financial officers, has inadequate financial management and accounting
education standards for comptroller jobs, and has a policy of rotating
officers too often through key accounting positions. In the report, GAO
pointed to these personnel practices as one cause of GAO findings of
misstatements in almost all of the Navy's major accounts.
The GAO report recommended that the Secretary of Defense ensure that
the following steps are taken by the Navy, all of which are applicable
to the other Armed Services:
Identify which key military comptroller positions can be converted to
civilian status in order to gain greater continuity, technical
competency, and cost savings.
For those comptroller positions identified for conversion to civilian
status, ensure that those positions are filled by individuals who
possess both the proper education and experience.
For those comptroller positions that should remain in military
billets, establish a career path in the financial management and
ensures that military officers are prepared, both in terms of education
and experience, for comptrollership responsibilities.
This year, I also released, along with Senator Durbin, Congressman
Peter DeFazio and Congresswoman Maloney, a second GAO report that
addressed some critical problems with the DOD's inventory practices.
``Defense Logistics: Much of the Inventory Exceeds Current Needs''
detailed billions of dollars in unneeded supplies and equipment within
the DOD's inventory. Although DOD has made some progress in reducing
the overstock in its inventory, much more needs to be done. This is
especially true in its overstock of spare parts and hardware items.
I agree with the committee's attempt to institutionalize best
commercial practices in the management of DOD's inventory, especially
for the inventory of spare parts. Our amendment simply requires the DOD
to implement pilot programs when needed. It also clarifies the
definition of best commercial practices to include the so-called prime
vendor arrangements which have proven very successful.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 747) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 748
(Purpose: To streamline electronic commerce requirements and for other
purposes)
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Thompson and
Glenn, I offer an amendment which would amend the requirements in the
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 to allow electronic
commerce at DOD and other Federal agencies to be implemented in a cost-
effective manner consistent with commercial practices.
The amendment would also make changes to current procurement law to
conform civilian agency statutes to DOD statutes regarding the
performance-based contracting and to revise a pilot program for the
purchase of information technology to make it more competitive by
allowing more than one vendor to participate in the program.
Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other
side, and I urge that the Senate adopt this amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this
side. It is a good amendment. We support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr.
Thompson, for himself, and Mr. Glenn, proposes an amendment
numbered 748.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and Senator
Glenn, the committee's ranking minority member. We thank the chairman
and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for their
cooperation and assistance in preparing this amendment which will
benefit not only the procurement process within the Department of
Defense, but other agencies across the Federal Government as well.
The amendment which we offer today began as a request from the
administration to include additional procurement-related reforms to
those enacted over the last 4 years and those already included in S.
936. Our amendment includes the following provisions:
First, it would amend current Governmentwide procurement law which
requires the development and implementation of a Governmentwide Federal
Acquisition Computer Network architecture--called FACNET and enacted as
part of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 [FASA]. At the
time, Congress intended to require the Government to evolve its
acquisition process from a paper-based process to an electronic
process. The specific intent of FACNET was to provide a common
architecture to implement electronic commerce within the Governmentwide
procurement system.
However, GAO recently reviewed the Government's progress in
developing and implementing FACNET, and concluded that, in the short
time since passage of FASA, alternative electronic purchasing methods
have become readily available to the Government and its vendors. Given
these advances in technology, the overly proscriptive requirements of
FASA and problems with implementation by the agencies, GAO questioned
whether and to what extent FACNET makes good business sense. GAO
recommended that if the FACNET requirements were an impediment to the
implementation of a Governmentwide electronic commerce strategy, then
legislative changes should be enacted. This amendment would provide
those changes to give flexibility to implement electronic commerce at
DOD and other Federal agencies in an efficient and cost-effective
manner consistent with commercial practice.
Further, the amendment would make technical changes to current
procurement law to: First, conform civilian agency statutes to DOD
statues regarding performance-based contracting; and second, revise a
pilot program for the purchase of information technology to make it
more competitive by allowing more than one vendor in the pilot.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 748) was agreed to.
[[Page S6980]]
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 749
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to review the command
selection process for District Engineers of the Army Corps of
Engineers)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Graham of Florida, I
offer an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to
report to Congress concerning the process that the Army Corps of
Engineers uses to assign officers as district engineers, and I believe
this amendment has been cleared by the other side.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on our
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Graham,
proposes an amendment numbered 749:
At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:
SEC. 10 . REPORT ON THE COMMAND SELECTION PROCESS FOR
DISTRICT ENGINEERS OF THE ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Army Corps of Engineers--
(A) has served the United States since the establishment of
the Corps in 1802;
(B) has provided unmatched combat engineering services to
the Armed Forces and the allies of the United States, both in
times of war and in times of peace;
(C) has brilliantly fulfilled its domestic mission of
planning, designing, building, and operating civil works and
other water resources projects;
(D) must remain constantly ready to carry out its wartime
mission while simultaneously carrying out its domestic civil
works mission; and
(E) continues to provide the United States with these
services in projects of previously unknown complexity and
magnitude, such as the Everglades Restoration Project and the
Louisiana Wetlands Restoration Project;
(2) the duration and complexity of these projects present
unique management and leadership challenges to the Army Corps
of Engineers;
(3) the effective management of these projects is the
primary responsibility of the District Engineer;
(4) District Engineers serve in that position for a term of
2 years and may have their term extended for a third year on
the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers; and
(5) the effectiveness of the leadership and management of
major Army Corps of Engineers projects may be enhanced if the
timing of District Engineer reassignments were phased to
coincide with the major phases of the projects.
(b) Report.--Not later than March 31, 1998, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit a report to Congress that contains--
(1) an identification of each major Army Corps of Engineers
project that--
(A) is being carried out by each District Engineer as of
the date of the report; or
(B) is being planned by each District Engineer to be
carried out during the 5-year period beginning on the date of
the report;
(2) the expected start and completion dates, during that
period, for each major phase of each project identified under
paragraph (1);
(3) the expected dates for leadership changes in each Army
Corps of Engineers District during that period;
(4) a plan for optimizing the timing of leadership changes
so that there is minimal disruption to major phases of major
Army Corps of Engineers projects; and
(5) a review of the impact on the Army Corps of Engineers,
and on the mission of each District, of allowing major
command tours of District Engineers to be of 2 to 4 years in
duration, with the selection of the exact timing of the
change of command to be at the discretion of the Chief of
Engineers who shall act with the goal of optimizing the
timing of each change so that it has minimal disruption on
the mission of the District Engineer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 749) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 750
(Purpose: To extend by two years the applicability of fulfillment
standards developed for purposes of certain defense acquisition
workforce training requirements)
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Santorum and
Lieberman, I offer an amendment which would extend for an additional 2
years the requirement under section 812 of the Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1993 and for the Department of Defense to develop
and implement alternative standards for fulfilling training
requirements under the Defense Acquisition Work Force Improvement Act.
Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other
side, and I urge the Senate to adopt it.
Mr. LEVIN. It has been cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr.
Santorum, for himself and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an
amendment numbered 750:
At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:
SEC. 844. TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF APPLICABILITY OF FULFILLMENT
STANDARDS FOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 812(c)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2451; 10
U.S.C. 1723 note) is amended by striking out ``October 1,
1997'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``October 1, 1999''.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment for myself
and Senator Lieberman that would extend the authority of the Department
of Defense to consider alternative approaches to the fulfillment of the
education and training requirements in the Defense Acquisition
Workforce Improvement Act in chapter 87 of title 10, United States
Code. In the report to accompany the Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998, the Armed Services Committee noted its continuing
concern with ensuring that our defense acquisition workforce has the
necessary education and training support for the new environment in
Government acquisition.
Section 812 of the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
directed the Department of Defense to develop alternative standards for
the fulfillment of the training requirements for the acquisition
workforce under the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act.
These standards will sunset on October 1 of this year. The amendment I
am offering would extend the life of these fulfillment standards for an
addition 2 years. This extension will allow the DOD to explore
alternatives to formal internal training programs, including completion
of courses outside of the Department of Defense educational system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 750) was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 712
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cleland, I call up
amendment No. 712 that would express the sense of Congress to reaffirm
the commitment of the United States to provide quality health care for
military retirees, and I believe this amendment has been cleared by the
other side.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on our
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 712) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 751
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to initiate actions to
eliminate or mitigate the need for some military families to subsist at
poverty level standards of living)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin, I offer an
amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to initiate
actions to eliminate or mitigate the need for some military families to
subsist at poverty level standards of living.
I ask also unanimous consent that Senator Kempthorne be listed as an
original cosponsor of this amendment.
I understand it has been cleared on the other side.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on our
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
[[Page S6981]]
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Harkin, for
himself and Mr. Kempthorne, proposes an amendment numbered
751:
At the end of subtitle E of title V, add the following:
SEC. 664. SUBSISTENCE OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES ABOVE
THE POVERTY LEVEL.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The morale and welfare of members of the Armed Forces
and their families are key components of the readiness of the
Armed Forces.
(2) Several studies have documented significant instances
of members of the Armed Forces and their families relying on
various forms of income support under programs of the Federal
Government, including assistance under the Food Stamp Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 2012(o) and assistance under the special
supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and
children under section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966
(42 U.S.C. 1786).
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Defense should strive--
(1) to eliminate the need for members of the Armed Forces
and their families to subsist at, near, or below the poverty
level; and
(2) to improve the wellbeing and welfare of members of the
Armed Forces and their families by implementing, and
programming full funding for, programs that have proven
effective in elevating the standard of living of members and
their families significantly above the poverty level.
(c) Study Required.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
conduct a study of members of the Armed Forces and their
families who subsist at, near, or below the poverty level.
(2) The study shall include the following:
(A) An analysis of potential solutions for mitigating or
eliminating the need for members of the Armed Forces and
their families to subsist at, near, or below the poverty
level, including potential solutions involving changes in the
systems and rates of basic allowance for subsistence, basic
allowance for quarters, and variable housing allowance.
(B) Identification of the populations most likely to need
income support under Federal Government programs, including--
(i) the populations living in areas of the United States
where housing costs are notably high;
(ii) the populations living outside the United States; and
(iii) the number of persons in each identified population.
(C) The desirability of increasing rates of basic pay and
allowances over a defined period of years by a range of
percentages that provides for higher percentage increases for
lower ranking personnel that for higher ranking personnel.
(d) Implementation of Department of Defense Special
Supplemental Food Program for Personnel Outside the United
States.--(1) Section 1060a(b) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Federal Payments and Commodities.--For the purpose of
obtaining Federal payments and commodities in order to carry
out the program referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary
of Agriculture shall make available to the Secretary of
Defense the same payments and commodities as are made for the
special supplemental food program in the United States under
section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.
1786). Funds available for the Department of Defense may be
used for carrying out the program under subsection (a).''.
(2) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report regarding the Secretary's intentions
regarding implementation of the program authorized under
section 1060a of title 10, United States Code, including any
plans to implement the program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 751) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
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. GORTON. 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. GORTON. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 666 offered by the Senator from
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone].
Amendment No. 424
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Navy to set aside the
previous selection of a recipient for donation of the USS Missouri and
to carry out a fair process for selection of a recipient for the
donation)
Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set
aside so that I can call up amendment No. 424 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] for himself and
Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 424.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle B of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1014. SELECTION PROCESS FOR DONATION OF THE USS MISSOURI
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The USS Missouri is a ship of historical significance
that commands considerable public interest.
(2) The Navy has undertaken to donate the USS Missouri to a
recipient that would memorialize the ship's historical
significance appropriately and has selected a recipient
pursuant to that undertaking.
(3) More than one year after the applicants for selection
began working on their proposals in accordance with
requirements previously specified by the Navy, the Navy
imposed two additional requirements and afforded the
applicants only two weeks to respond to the new requirements,
requirement, never previously used in any previous donation
process.
(4) Despite the inadequacy of the opportunity afforded
applicants to comply with the two new requirements, and
without informing the applicants of the intent to do so, the
Navy officials gave three times as much weight to the new
requirements than they did to their own original requirements
in evaluating the applications.
(5) Moreover, Navy officials revised the evaluation
subcriteria for the ``public benefits'' requirements after
all applications had been submitted and reviewed, thereby
never giving applicants an opportunity to address their
applications to the revised subcriteria.
(6) The General Accounting Office criticized the revised
process for inadequate notice and causing all applications to
include inadequate information.
(7) In spite of the GAO critria, the Navy has refused to
reopen its donations process for the Missouri
(b) New Donee Selection Process.--(1) the Secretary of the
Navy shall--
(A) set aside the selection of a recipient for donation of
the USS Missouri;
(B) initiate a new opportunity for application and
selection of a recipient for donation of the USS Missouri
that opens not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(C) in the new application of selection effort--
(i) disregard all applications received, and evaluations
made of those applications, before the new opportunity is
opened;
(ii) permit any interested party to apply for selection as
the donee of the USS Missouri; and
(iii) ensure that all requirements, criteria, and
evaluation methods, including the relative importance of each
requirement and criterion, are clearly communicated to each
applicant.
(2) After the date on which the new opportunity for
application and selection for donation of the USS Missouri is
opened, the navy may not add to or revise the requirements
and evaluation criteria that are applicable in the selection
process on that date.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Feinstein be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the U.S.S. Missouri, the battleship on
which the Japanese surrender was signed in 1945, was decommissioned,
mothballed and home ported in Bremerton, WA, from 1954 until it was
recommissioned in 1986. It was during that period of time, of course, a
major and treasured tourist attraction located relatively conveniently
in the continental United States.
In 1995, the Missouri was decommissioned for a second time and
returned to Bremerton. The U.S. Navy then made the Missouri available
for donation to a community willing and able to transform the ship into
a world class maritime museum honoring the men and women who served in
World War II.
The Save the Missouri Committee in Bremerton competed with four other
applicants in Hawaii and California under the same rules that had been
applied to all previous Navy donations.
I want to emphasize that once again, Mr. President. These were
general Navy donation rules under which Bremerton and the other four
cities competed.
[[Page S6982]]
At the last minute, however, when it was likely that Bremerton would
be chosen under those rules, the Navy added two new requirements,
failing to tell any of the applicants that the two new requirements
would count for 75 percent of the ultimate decision and that the
earlier rules were only 25 percent.
The applicants had 2 weeks to respond. None of the applicants,
according to the Navy's own evaluation team, responded adequately.
Nevertheless, the Navy awarded the Missouri to Honolulu based
exclusively on those new requirements.
The General Accounting Office then reviewed the Navy process. It
criticized it on just the grounds that I have outlined. The Navy
nevertheless has refused to reopen the process for the four losing
applicants, Bremerton and the three in California.
Mr. President, during this entire process, I never interfered and
told the Navy what answer it should come up with. I simply assumed that
the Navy would do so on an objective and on a nonpolitical basis.
Now, however, I must say that, based on my own experience and the
report of the General Accounting Office, I am outraged at the Navy's
lack of objectivity and its indifference to fairness.
This amendment, therefore, sponsored by myself, my colleague from
Washington, and Senator Feinstein from California, will not decide the
question in favor of one of our cities. It simply requires the Navy to
reopen the question and to treat all five applicants fairly and under
the same rules that were imposed at the beginning of the process rather
than being added at the end. It is as simple as that. Mr. President,
something that the Navy should have done in the first place it would be
required to do by this amendment.
Obviously, the location of the Missouri, given its historic nature,
is a matter of significance to all of the applicants and, I think, to
all Americans and most especially to those who served in World War II.
Obviously, I would prefer the ultimate location to be in my own
State. But I have not demanded in the past, nor do I demand now, that
the Navy decide in my favor. I simply ask that it make this decision
objectively--nothing more and nothing less.
For that reason, I ask for the support of my colleagues for this
modest proposal.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my Washington State
colleague in offering this amendment to require the Navy to revisit the
awarding of the U.S.S. Missouri. I have followed closely the Navy's
handling of the Missouri; working with Senator Gorton, Congressman Norm
Dicks, the Washington congressional delegation, and my constituents. I
am also pleased that California Senators have joined this effort to
question the Navy's Missouri decision.
The history of the ``Mighty Mo'' is known all across our country and
throughout the world. This is a relic of immense importance and
historical significance. It was on the decks of this great battleship
that World War II came to a welcome end. The Missouri is particularly
valued by the residents of my State where she has been berthed for most
of the last 40 years in Bremerton. She is a source of great pride to
veterans in my State; many of whom served in World War II including in
the Pacific theater and aboard the ``Mighty Mo.''
Following the Navy's decision to remove the Missouri from the Naval
Vessel Register, five proposals were submitted to the Navy from
communities interested in taking ownership of the famed battleship.
Bremerton, WA was among the five applicants seeking to display and
honor the Missouri. San Diego, San Francisco and Honolulu all submitted
proposals.
Each community vying for the Missouri submitted voluminous
applications to the Navy responding within a year's time to a set of
Navy criteria previously used in the disposition of the U.S.S.
Lexington. While I cannot speak for the other applicants, I know of the
care, the time, and the commitment demonstrated by the Bremerton
community in preparing its proposal to the Navy. Bremerton's proposal
to permanently display the Missouri was delivered to the Navy in
October 1995.
Last August, the Secretary of the Navy announced the decision to
award the Missouri to Honolulu, HI. Following the Navy's decision,
significant questions were raised regarding the Navy's process in
awarding the battleship. Congressman Norm Dicks in his capacity as a
senior member of the House Appropriations Committee requested a General
Accounting Office study on the Navy's donation process of the Missouri.
It is the results of this GAO study that bring us here today. Since
coming to the Congress, I have sought to let the Sun shine on the
political process--to share with the public the great decisions before
this body. The GAO study demonstrates that the Navy also needs a little
sunshine.
Here's what the GAO found in reviewing the Navy process. Following
the review of applications, the Navy added new and previously unused
criteria to the selection process. And, according to the GAO, the Navy
did not do a good job communicating the relative importance of the new
evaluation criteria. According to the GAO, several of the applicants
reported that the Navy gave them the mistaken impression that the
additional requirements were not that significant.
Shockingly, these new criteria were actually given 75 percent of the
donation award weight. After more than 1 year of discussion among the
interested communities, the Navy changed the rules and failed to
explain the importance of the new rules. Then the Navy gave the
competing communities 12 days to respond to the new rules which turned
out to be decisive in awarding the battleship.
Clearly, the Navy bungled the process--either innocently or with
other motives in mind. I am not here to accuse either the Navy or
another applicant of behaving inappropriately. Rather, I do believe the
facts of the case as established by the GAO argue for our amendment.
Let me state clearly what our amendment seeks to accomplish today. We
simply seek the Senate's support to instruct the Navy to conduct a new
donee selection process. We do not seek to influence or prejudge that
selection process. We only want a fair competition, administered by the
Navy in a manner worthy of this great battleship.
Like all of my colleagues interested in displaying the Missouri, I
have every confidence in the proposal from my home State. Bremerton
continues to host the Missouri today and the community is devoted to
remaining the steward of this unique historic monument. The Missouri is
a passion for the residents of Bremerton, Kitsap County, and indeed all
of Washington State.
I recognize that the interests of Washington State may not be enough
to sway the Senate to overturn the Navy's decision. However, I do want
my colleagues to know that this is not a small, regional competition.
Veterans all across this country care about the Missouri. Those who
served aboard this great battleship live in every State in the country;
many are now elderly and incapable of traveling great distances to
commemorate their service. It is for our veterans and particularly for
those that served aboard the ``Mighty Mo'' that we must ensure that the
process is fair to all.
All World War II vets recognize and revere the ``Mighty Mo.'' Just
recently, Bremerton hosted a group of 110 families and survivors from
the Death March of Bataan and Corregidor. These veterans, many in poor
health, could travel to Bremerton. And they wanted to see the ``Mighty
Mo.'' This reverence for the battleship demands that the Senate stand
for a process fair to all.
I urge my colleagues to support the Gorton-Murray amendment.
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER [Ms. Snowe]. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, briefly, it displeases me to be standing
here speaking in opposition to my distinguished friend from Washington.
But I think it should be remembered by all of us that under current
law, the law that is in place, the Secretary of the Navy is authorized
to donate any stricken vessel to any organization which can demonstrate
its financial means to support it.
The Navy is not required to hold a competition nor is it required to
select a winning proposal. However, as my
[[Page S6983]]
friend from Washington noted, when it became apparent that there were
several cities vying for the Missouri, such as San Francisco,
Bremerton, and Pearl Harbor, the Secretary determined that he would
very carefully examine how he would dispose of the ship.
In a lengthy competition, the Navy kept all participants equally
informed. Nowhere in the GAO report does it say that any city got
favorable treatment. They were equally informed of how it would judge
the applicants.
It determined that in the unique situation at hand it should ensure
that this historic ship should be located where it would best serve the
Navy and the Nation. Those were the two additional criteria.
I think that even without stating that, that should be the first
criteria: How best can the interests of this Nation be served? How will
the Navy's interests be served?
The Secretary issued these new requirements to all of the applicants.
According to the GAO, no one received favorable or preferential
treatment. The Navy Secretary then had his staff evaluate the criteria.
He chose the best proposal as the winning location. Under the current
law the Secretary could have selected the losing proposal, but he did
not. He chose the winning proposal. And the winner was Pearl Harbor.
Now, those that lost say that is not fair. If one would objectively
look at the GAO report, it does not suggest that it was not fair. All
applicants operated under the same rules. We did not know that the Navy
would change the interests which best served their interests.
They argue that the competition should be reopened. What is the basis
of this argument? The GAO did not recommend that the competition be
reopened, nor did the Secretary recommend that the competition be
reopened. Instead, they believe, since none of the parties had enough
time to consider how their location was the best location for the ship,
that we should go back and redo the competition.
Madam President, I believe that is completely unfair to the winning
team. We have made countless--hundreds--of decisions of this nature.
Did we go back to MacDonnell Douglas and say we are going to reopen the
competition for the joint strike fighter because they lost to Boeing?
No. Did the Navy reopen the competition of the sealift ship contracts
when Newport News and Ingalls lost to Avondale? No.
Madam President, the amendment by the Senator from Washington, I
believe, is unfair and it is bad for all of us. Each of us has had
constituents which won and also lost competitions. If we are to go back
and reconsider awards even when the GAO does not recommend reopening
matters, then I believe we will be in very serious trouble.
I believe that the Pearl Harbor applicants won the contest and
competition for one simple reason: The Pearl Harbor applicants did not
look upon the Missouri as a mere tourist attraction. We have a very
sacred ship in Pearl Harbor at this moment, the Arizona. There are over
1,700 men who are still in the ship. It is a memorial. And it happens
that more tourists visit the Arizona than they do the Tomb of the
Unknown Soldier. But it was not built, Madam President, as a tourist
attraction. It was built as a memorial to remind all of us that on this
dark morning of December 7, 1941, we were suddenly thrust into a bloody
and terrible war.
The battleship Missouri is a ship upon which the surrender terms were
signed by the representatives of the Imperial Government of Japan. The
most logical spot for the location is Pearl Harbor. On one hand, you
will see the Arizona where the war began, and down Battleship Row you
will see the U.S.S. Missouri where the war ended. It would constantly
remind us of the many sacrifices that men and women of the United
States were called upon to make during that terrible war.
I have visited Bremerton. It is a nice place. But I am certain that
my colleagues realize that Bremerton is also looked upon by Navy
personnel, and others, as the graveyard of ships, where dozens upon
dozens of destroyers and cruisers are parked and put in cover hoping
that someday they can be used.
The Missouri deserves much more than a graveyard, Madam President.
The Missouri should be respected with dignity; it should be revered as
a memorial.
So, Madam President, I hope that my colleagues will follow the
suggestions of the GAO. The GAO said it should stand as is. The
Secretary of the Navy said his decision stands. Why go through the
misery again of spending countless dollars to come up with the same
result?
I thank the Chair.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Madam President, with almost all of the factual
statements about how the selection process was made, I agree with my
friend and colleague from Hawaii. With his unwarranted characterization
of Bremerton and, by implication, of San Francisco and of the
California applicants, I most decidedly do not.
Pearl Harbor is in fact a memorial to World War II and to its
beginning. But Pearl Harbor, no more than Bremerton or San Francisco,
was the location of the surrender of the Japanese on board the Missouri
at the end of the war.
Under the logic of the Senator from Hawaii, the Missouri should be
sent to Tokyo Bay and be a memorial and a reminder there. Obviously,
that is not going to be the case. But from the point of view of its
availability to primarily American tourists, it is obviously more
conveniently located in one of the west coast ports than it is
Honolulu.
But, Madam President, the true difference between the Senator from
Hawaii and myself is not that. The Senator from Hawaii, as apparently
he did to the Navy himself, is making the case for his location. I
simply depended on the Navy to make that decision objectively.
The Navy, of course, can set up whatever criteria it wishes for
making a donation of a ship or any other artifact to a community, but
the Navy, like every other American institution, should do so fairly
and on the basis of rules that are not changed at the beginning of the
game without telling the participants in the game what the new rules
mean or what weight they will be given. Had the Navy followed its
original rules, the rules it applied itself to all previous donations,
Bremerton was the most likely winner by reason of the deep concern on
the part of the community for what had been a part of its history for
more than 40 years. But at the very end, the Navy comes up with two
other criteria, informs no one of their importance, gives them 75
percent of the weight in making its decision, and comes out, I presume,
where someone in the Navy wanted to come out in the first place but
could not without changing those rules.
My amendment does not even require that those rules be changed,
though I think they should be, Madam President. It simply requires the
Navy to treat the citizens of the five communities that applied to be
the permanent home of the Missouri on the basis of the same rules at
the end of the process that it had at the beginning of the process and
to inform those communities of what the rules are and what their
relative weight is. That is asking for the most minimal fairness, Madam
President, the most minimal fairness in the world.
The General Accounting Office did not take a position one way or the
other on whether or not the process should be reopened, said that none
of the communities were adequately informed about the nature and the
weight of the new criteria. That is the fundamental answer that should
have caused the Navy to reopen this process on its own.
Madam President, it is interesting to note that the fairness of this
request, the request I am making in this amendment, is recognized even
by the Honolulu Advertiser. Now, the Honolulu newspaper, a month ago
tomorrow, wrote an editorial on the subject which, of course, takes
Senator Inouye's position on the merits, that Pearl Harbor is
practically the only logical place and certainly the most logical place
for the location of the Missouri. But it does say, in part,
Officials from Bremerton, WA, cite a General Accounting
Office report that says there were a number of last minute
changes in the Navy's selection process that skewed it in
[[Page S6984]]
favor of Honolulu. They want the selection process reopened.
Hawaii Senator Dan Inouye, whose enthusiasm was very obvious
in the effort to get the Missouri at Pearl Harbor, says the
GAO report in itself is skewed. He promises the great
battleship will come to Pearl. Let's hope so. But if the
proposed Pearl Harbor resting place makes so much sense, as
we believe, then there should be no problem in reopening the
selection process so that all questions are answered.
It concludes, ``And no one can claim Hawaii stole it. We can proudly
say we earned the right to host the Missouri.''
I am not sure that would be the result. I hope that would not be the
result. The very newspaper in Honolulu itself acknowledges that this
competition should be a fair one and carries the implication that it
was an unfair one. We ask no more than that. This is not a tremendously
complicated process. It will not take a long time to do justice. But
justice has not been done, Madam President, and it can only be done by
the acceptance of this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest that to call upon the Navy as
being unfair and not objective is not fair. There is nothing in the
record to suggest that they have been less than objective or less than
fair.
I think it should be pointed out that the GAO report stated that no
one received preferential treatment, no one received advance notice. It
was objective, it was fair to all, and the Secretary of the Navy just
recently stated he stands by his decision, and the GAO report itself
says the decision should be left where it is. It should not be
reopened.
So I hope my colleagues will defeat this amendment.
Mr. GORTON. Madam President, one correction. The GAO makes no
recommendation with respect to whether or not this question should be
reopened whatever. It does say the Navy should change its donation
procedures in the future, but it does not say that the selection should
stand.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I oppose the amendment to reopen the
Navy's decision to donate the U.S.S. Missouri to Pearl Harbor.
These are obviously very difficult decisions for all of us to make
because of the friendships with the Senators from the States involved.
I do believe, under these circumstances, the GAO found that the Navy's
donation process was impartially applied, to use their words. They are
critical of some aspects of the process and many of these processes are
not perfect in their application. But to me, the key words of the GAO
report are that the Navy's donation process appears to have been
impartially applied, and the GAO's statement on page 10 where they say
that on June 5, 1996, each of the five applicants was notified for the
first time that ``In addition to the financial and technical
information that you've provided, your application will also be
evaluated in terms of its overall public benefit to the Navy and to the
historical significance associated with each location to include the
manner in which the ship will be used as a naval museum or memorial.''
Notification was made in writing, with telephone confirmation.
The GAO also reports on page 12 that none of the applicants requested
clarification of the June 5 letter or expressed concern about the
additional requirements at the time, and all responded to the letter.
That, to me, is a very critical fact, that when the additional
requirements were spelled out in that June 5 notification, that all the
applicants responded to the letter with the additional requirements and
none requested clarification or expressed concern.
Was this a perfect process? It was not. The GAO acknowledges that,
and indeed, the Navy acknowledges that. Was this process sufficiently
fair so that we should not reopen the Navy's decision to donate the
Missouri to Pearl Harbor? It seems to me that it does meet that test.
I will oppose the amendment and vote against reopening the Navy's
selection process.
I yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter
dated June 10, 1997, from the Secretary of the Navy to the Honorable
Norman D. Dicks, a Member of the House of Representatives, be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Department of the Navy,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, 10 June 1997.
Hon. Norman D. Dicks,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Dicks: Thank you for your letter of June 3, 1997,
regarding the General Accounting Office report concerning the
Navy's donation selection process for the battleship ex-
MISSOURI.
I have reviewed the General Accounting Office report you
enclosed, and I find that it contains nothing that would
warrant reopening the process. The General Accounting Office
stated that the Navy ``impartially applied'' the donation
selection process, and that all applicants received the same
information at the same time. The report's chronology
documents that scoring for the financial, technical,
historical and public affairs evaluation of each application
did not begin until after all criteria weighting was
established and all information was received from the
applicants. The initial evaluation scores developed by each
of the three independent scoring teams were maintained
throughout the process. I remain confident that my selection
of Pearl Harbor was in the best interest of the Navy and our
Nation, based on the impartial review of the relative merits
of the four acceptable applications.
The General Accounting Office found the initial phase of
the donation selection process was well-handled, but that the
Navy could have done a better job of communicating
information about the two additional evaluation criteria of
Public Affairs Benefit and Historical Significance. The
General Accounting Office also noted, however, that none of
the applicants requested clarification on any aspect of these
two criteria. When the General Accounting Office forwards
their report to me, I will consider and provide a written
response to any specific recommendations they make regarding
how to improve the process for future competitive donation
selections.
I am sensitive to the concerns of those American veterans
who have expressed their desire to keep ex-MISSOURI on the
mainland. Others, including the American Legion's Department
of Missouri, have endorsed the Pearl Harbor site. I regret
that it is not possible to accommodate all groups who are
interested in the location of the ex-MISSOURI display. As I
said at the time my selection was announced last summer, this
was a very tough decision since all the proposals were so
impressive. I hope that other groups interested in displaying
a Navy ship will consider that there are several other ships
currently available for donation.
As always, if I can be of any further assistance, please
let me know.
Sincerely,
John H. Dalton,
Secretary of the Navy.
Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by Senator Gorton.
The ``Mighty Mo'' is a historical icon of World War II in the
Pacific. It began its service in World War II by providing gunfire
support during the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The U.S.S. Missouri
took its place in world history when it became the site for the formal
signing of Japan's surrender.
Continuing its auspicious beginnings, the Missouri participated in
the Korean war, was decommissioned, then recommissioned, and saw its
final battles during the Persian Gulf conflict. She was finally
decommissioned on March 31, 1992.
In January 1995, the Department of the Navy declared Iowa class
battleships in excess to its requirements. The people of Hawaii have
always believed that the Missouri's home is Hawaii. We supported having
her homeported in Hawaii before she was decommissioned in 1992. Since
then, our community has been diligently working to bring the Missouri
to Hawaii to fulfill its final mission--as a memorial museum in the
Pacific. It is a fitting tribute to those we honor at the Arizona
Memorial to have the Missouri become a part of our memorial in the
Pacific.
The Senator from Washington believes that the Navy's evaluation
process was unfair because the criteria were changed during the
evaluation stage. However, the General Accounting Office found that the
Navy provided all applicants the same information on the additional
criteria at the same time. Although all interested parties were
provided the same information, none of the applicants requested
clarification of the additional requirement.
The Navy conducted an impartial and fair review in determining the
site location for the Missouri. There is no reason to reopen the
selection process. I
[[Page S6985]]
urge my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by the Senator from
Washington, and let us move forward in establishing a memorial to those
who so gallantly fought in the Pacific.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 753
(Purpose: To require a report on options for the disposal of chemical
weapons and agents)
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an
amendment numbered 753.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At an appropriate place in title III, insert the following:
SEC. . REPORT ON OPTIONS FOR THE DISPOSAL OF CHEMICAL
WEAPONS AND AGENTS.
(a) Requirement.--Not later than March 15, 1998, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the
options available to the Department of Defense for the
disposal of chemical weapons and agents in order to
facilitate the disposal of such weapons and agents without
the construction of additional chemical weapons disposal
facilities in the continental United States.
(b) Elements.--The report shall include the following:
(1) a description of each option evaluated;
(2) an assessment of the lifecycle costs and risks
associated with each option evaluated;
(3) a statement of any technical, regulatory, or other
requirements or obstacles with respect to each option,
including with respect to any transportation of weapons or
agents that is required for the option;
(4) an assessment of incentives required for sites to
accept munitions or agents from outside their own locales, as
well as incentives to enable transportation of these items
across state lines;
(5) an assessment of the cost savings that could be
achieved through either the application of uniform federal
transportation or safety requirements and any other
initiatives consistent with the transportation and safe
disposal of stockpile and nonstockpile chemical weapons and
agents; and
(6) proposed legislative language necessary to implement
options determined by the Secretary to be worthy of
consideration by the Congress.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, let me explain very briefly the
amendment that I put before the Senate. This amendment would direct the
Department of Defense to conduct a study of alternatives to our present
approach to chemical weapons disposal. Depending on the conclusion of
this study and its evaluation, there is a potential savings to the
taxpayer, somewhere in the area of $3 billion to $5 billion, and
perhaps much more, in the costs of disposing of these weapons.
The Chair might wonder why the chairman of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee is interested and involved with this issue, and to
what degree does he have expertise in this area that falls under the
auspices of the Department of Defense and under the Defense
authorization bill. The Chairman would respond, Madam President, by
noting that, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
I spend a great deal of time and energy in the area of nuclear waste
and nuclear waste disposal and the transportation of nuclear waste.
I might add that there has been moved globally about 25,000 tons of
high-level nuclear waste throughout the world. We have, currently, in
some 80 reactors in 31 sites in the United States, high-level nuclear
waste that we are contemplating at some time moving to Yucca Mountain
in Nevada. So I think the qualifications for a contribution to the area
of disposing of chemical weapons is appropriate in the body of the
amendment. This amendment simply calls for a study. It does not mandate
changes in the program at this time, but will provide the Congress with
an important and needed opportunity to responsibly evaluate
alternatives to our chemical weapons disposal program in the future.
Surprisingly enough, there is no authority to evaluate alternatives
at this time for the Department of Defense. It was my hope this
amendment would be accepted by the floor managers.
I think it is noteworthy, Madam President, that prior to the Senate's
ratification of the Chemical Weapons Treaty, the United States did
adopt the policy that we would dispose of our chemical weapons in a
safe and environmentally responsible manner. As most of my colleagues
know, the disposal process is now underway, but it is becoming clear
that we cannot afford to continue this program as it is currently
constructed because of the costs.
According to the General Accounting Office, the costs of the
stockpile disposal program have escalated seven-fold, from an initial
estimate of $1.7 billion to a current estimate of $12.4 billion. The
costs of the nonstockpile program, which consists of the location and
destruction of chemical weapons ordinance that was disposed of through
burial or other means in the past, could cost an additional $15.1
billion and take up to 40 years to complete.
Well, that is a total of about $27.5 billion to dispose of our
chemical weapons. However, the GAO indicates that both the costs and
the disposal schedules are highly uncertain and that it will likely
take more time and likely take more money to get this job done.
Well, as a consequence of that dilemma, Madam President, I think the
program needs a fresh look, a new comprehensive evaluation by the
program managers in the Department of Defense.
Today, we have stockpiled chemical weapons stored at 9 locations. On
the chart on my right, one can see that we start out with the Johnston
Atoll, an island in the Pacific, roughly 700 miles southwest of Hawaii.
We have another in Tooele, UT. Umatilla, OR; Pueblo, CO; Pine Bluff,
AR; Anniston, AL; Blue Grass, KY; Aberdeen, MD, and Newport, IN.
The chemical consistencies of the weapons stored there are
abbreviated here by GB, which is a sarin nerve agent, and HD, which is
a mustard blister agent, and VX, which is a nerve gas agent.
Now, I have had the opportunity to visit the facility at Johnston
Island on two occasions in the last 3 years. The chemical weapons are
stored in capsules that look like hundred pound bombs. And within the
bomb itself, or the casing, we have two components. One is an agent
that is separate and distinct from the other nerve gas agents, and
there is a triggering mechanism. Of course, the chemical reaction takes
place when the two are mixed, or the exterior shell is punctured or
broken. It is rather revealing to contemplate the terrible consequences
of this type of weaponry, Madam President. It was explained that these
can be fired from a Howitzer in ground activity, exploding perhaps 300
or 400 feet in the air, and the mist of the vapors, upon contact with
the skin, will take a life within 30 seconds. Now, when you see this
stored, you come to grips with the reality of the devastation of this
type of weaponry and the necessity of proper disposal.
It is also important to recognize how it got there because this stuff
wasn't made at Johnston Island. It was shipped there from Europe, and
some was shipped from some of our bases in the Pacific. It was shipped
under the observation of the Army Corps of Engineers. It was shipped
safely and met the criteria for shipment, which was evaluated to ensure
its safety.
So it is important to keep in mind in this discussion that these
weapons we are now disposing of at Johnston Island, for the most part,
were weapons that were part of the NATO capability, shipped from
Germany, and have been safely transported to Johnston Island and are
under the process of being destroyed.
Now, at Johnston island, we have this capability for weapons
demilitarization and incineration. This complies, as it must, with all
applicable environmental laws, including the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Toxic
Substances Control Act. It is a superbly safe, state-of-the-art
facility. It is also very expensive. This plant cost approximately $1
billion.
What they have there are chambers where they take these things that
look like bombs with the chemical in them and they actually take, in
parts, the Chamber--that is, the inner Chamber,
[[Page S6986]]
remove that, and put it in an area where they are able to dispose,
through heat, of the volatility of the particular chemical agent. The
other part goes in another Chamber and is burned at a very high
temperature in an enclosed cycle process. So there is nothing that gets
into the atmosphere.
Now, we have recently opened another $1 billion facility in Tooele,
UT. The theory is that we are going to have to build some seven more of
these plants, capable of disposing of this chemical waste at each of
the locations where stockpiled chemical weapons are stored. So while we
have operational facilities at Johnston Atoll and Tooele, UT, we are
prepared to put in seven more at a billion dollars each, simply because
we are prohibited from even considering shipping this to safe disposal
sites already on line.
As I said, we have a perfectly functioning facility on Johnston
Island, which has been operational for a number of years. Should we
move or even consider moving chemical weapons to Johnston Island and
dispose of all of them in that plant we have already built? The answer
clearly is no. There are objections from California and objections from
Hawaii. Nobody wants this to happen in their own backyard. These States
that have the chemical weapons stored are in kind of a catch-22. They
don't want them there anymore. If they want to get rid of them, they
have to build a plant at a cost of over a billion dollars, as opposed
to the alternative of shipping them to one or two sites.
Well, the answer to this $5 billion question is simple. Under current
law, the Department of Defense cannot move chemical weapons across
State lines. In fact, they can't even study the concept of transporting
the munitions to an existing plant and thus build fewer plants. So if
you look at the practicality of where we are, we are of one mind set.
Reality: If we want to get rid of this stuff, we have to build seven
plants rather than move the stuff because we have a law that prohibits
us from moving these agents across State lines for disposal at one or
two plants.
In other words, the Department of Defense can't even think about
saving money by having this process occur in just a couple of plants
instead of--well, it would be a total of nine. My amendment is designed
to allow the Department of Defense to study the transportation issue,
as well as whatever other approaches might be available to help bring
down program costs consistent with the safe disposal of these chemical
weapons.
My amendment does not repeal the provision in the 1995 defense
authorization bill that prohibits the movement of chemical weapons
munitions across the State lines.
At this time, we are only seeking a study to identify and evaluate
options. This study will assess lifecycle costs as well as risks. We
are not moving beyond the study phase because I, for one, will await
the results of the study before reaching any firm conclusions.
But I have a hunch--and it is more than a hunch--that we can save
money by reassessing this process. I am not suggesting it should go to
any one place. But the reality is that we are designing a framework
here for disposal in seven new additional sites which still need to be
built. Given that we have two state of the art, fully operational
facilities at Johnston Island and Tooele, UT, is it really necessary
that we need to build seven additional sites? Or can we consolidate
this process, perhaps with one site on the east coast and one site in
the middle of the country? Our technical people have proven the
competency of disposing of this, as we have had this process underway
at Johnston Island and Tooele for some time. We seem to be so paranoid
over the fact that we have this stuff and we are caught, if you will,
in a dilemma of, well, if we want to get rid of it, we have to build a
plant where it is stationed because nobody wants to see it moved across
to someplace else where it can be disposed of. But nobody addresses
what the experts tell us relative to the ability to move this stuff
safely. We moved it safely from Germany to Johnston Island, it can be
done and has been done. To suggest that we can't move it 400 or 500
miles by putting it in the type of containers that will alleviate
virtually any exposure associated with an accident, I think, sells
American technology and ingenuity short. We can move chemical weapons
in a safe and environmentally responsible manner, and we can save a lot
of money by reducing the number of facilities that we are committed to
build.
So I urge the Senate to adopt my amendment. Again, I urge my
colleagues to reflect on the reality that this amendment does not
mandate any changes in the program. It will not mandate the movement of
any chemical weapons from one place to another or remove the
prohibitions to move weapons across State lines. It would merely allow
the Department of Defense to study alternatives and report back to
Congress by March 15, 1998. I know of the sensitivity of Members whose
States are affected. But I ask them to consider the merits of a study
to evaluate, indeed, whether we can move some of this to some places
and reduce the number of facilities that we are going to build at a
billion dollars a crack. What are we going to do with these facilities
when the weapons have been deactivated and destroyed? We are going to
destroy the facilities. I urge adoption of the amendment.
Madam President, if I may, it is my intention to ask for the yeas and
nays on my amendment at the appropriate time. The floor managers can
address it at their convenience.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator withhold on that for a moment?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. 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. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am not sure whether the
Parliamentarian recorded my request for the yeas and nays. I would like
to withdraw asking for the yeas and nays on my amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 753, as Modified
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to modify my amendment which is pending at the desk at this
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his
amendment at this time.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 753), as modified, is as follows:
At an appropriate place in title III, insert the following:
SEC. . REPORT ON OPTIONS FOR THE DISPOSAL OF CHEMICAL
WEAPONS AND AGENTS.
Notwithstanding any provision of law:
(a) Requirement.--Not later than March 15, 1998, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the
options available to the Department of Defense for the
disposal of chemical weapons and agents in order to
facilitate the disposal of such weapons and agents without
the construction of additional chemical weapons disposal
facilities in the continental United States.
(b) Elements.--The report shall include the following:
(1) a description of each option evaluated;
(2) an assessment of the lifecycle costs and risks
associated with each option evaluated;
(3) a statement of any technical, regulatory, or other
requirements or obstacles with respect to each option,
including with respect to any transportation of weapons or
agents that is required for the option;
(4) an assessment of incentives required for sites to
accept munitions or agents from outside their own locales, as
well as incentives to enable transportation of these items
across state lines;
(5) an assessment of the cost savings that could be
achieved through either the application of uniform federal
transportation or safety requirements and any other
initiatives consistent with the transportation and safe
disposal of stockpile and nonstockpile chemical weapons and
agents; and
(6) proposed legislative language necessary to implement
options determined by the Secretary to be worthy of
consideration by the Congress.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page S6987]]
Modifications to Amendments Nos. 666, 667, 668, and 670, en bloc
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Wellstone, I ask
unanimous consent that it be in order to modify his amendments numbered
666, 667, 668, and 670, en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator
Wellstone, I send his modifications to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are so modified.
The modifications are as follows:
modification to amendment no. 666
On page 1, line 5, strike ``shall'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``is authorized to''.
modification to amendment no. 667
On page 7, line 13, strike ``shall'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``is authorized to''.
amendment no. 668, as modified
At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:
SEC. . TRANSFER FOR VETERANS' HEALTH CARE AND OTHER
PURPOSES.
(a) Transfer Required.--The Secretary of Defense is
authorized to transfer to the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs
$400,000,000 of the funds appropriated for the Department of
Defense for fiscal year 1998.
(b) Use of Transferred Funds.--Funds transferred to the
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs shall be for the purpose of
providing benefits under the laws administered by the
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, other than compensation and
pension benefits provided under Chapters 11 and 13 of title
38, United States Code.
modification to amendment no. 670
On page 1, line 6, strike ``shall'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``is authorized to''.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. 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. KYL. Mr. President, I have two amendments that I would like to
lay down. Both are at the desk.
Amendment No. 607
(Purpose: To impose a limitation on the use of Cooperative Threat
Reduction funds for destruction of chemical weapons)
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the first amendment at the desk is amendment
No. 607.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment
numbered 607.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1075. LIMITATION ON USE OF COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
FUNDS FOR DESTRUCTION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
(a) Limitation.--No funds authorized to be appropriated
under this or any other Act for fiscal year 1998 for
Cooperative Threat Reduction programs may be obligated or
expended for chemical weapons destruction activities,
including for the planning, design, or construction of a
chemical weapons destruction facility or for the
dismantlement of an existing chemical weapons production
facility, until the date that is 15 days after a
certification is made under subsection (b).
(b) Presidential Certification.--A certification under this
subsection is a certification by the President to Congress
that--
(1) Russia is making reasonable progress toward the
implementation of the Bilateral Destruction Agreement;
(2) the United States and Russia have resolved, to the
satisfaction of the United States, outstanding compliance
issues under the Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding and the
Bilateral Destruction Agreement;
(3) Russia has fully and accurately declared all
information regarding its unitary and binary chemical
weapons, chemical weapons facilities, and other facilities
associated with chemical weapons;
(4) Russia has deposited its instrument of ratification of
the Chemical Weapons Convention; and
(5) Russia and the United States have concluded an
agreement that--
(A) provides for a limitation on the United States
financial contribution for the chemical weapons destruction
activities; and
(B) commits Russia to pay a portion of the cost for a
chemical weapons destruction facility in an amount that
demonstrates that Russia has a substantial stake in financing
the implementation of both the Bilateral Destruction
Agreement and the Chemical Weapons Convention, as called for
in the condition provided in section 2(14) of the Senate
Resolution entitled ``A resolution to advise and consent to
the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, subject
to certain conditions'', agreed to by the Senate on April 24,
1997.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Bilateral Destruction Agreement'' means the
Agreement Between the United States of America and the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics on Destruction and
Nonproduction of Chemical Weapons and on Measures to
Facilitate the Multilateral Convention on Banning Chemical
Weapons, signed on June 1, 1990.
(2) The term ``Chemical Weapons Convention'' means the
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production,
Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their
Destruction, opened for signature on January 13, 1993.
(3) The term ``Cooperative Threat Reduction program'' means
a program specified in section 1501(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law
104-201: 110 Stat. 2731; 50 U.S.C. 2362 note).
(4) The term ``Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding'' means
the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the
United States of America and the Government of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics Regarding a Bilateral Verification
Experiment and Data Exchange Related to Prohibition on
Chemical Weapons, signed at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on
September 23, 1989.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me briefly describe what this amendment
does. Then I will discuss it in further detail later.
In summary, this amendment establishes five conditions for the
assistance that is to be provided to Russia for destruction of its
chemical weapons, the so-called Nunn-Lugar funding. Very briefly, this
resolution is called for because the funding that we have provided to
Russia to date does not appear to be adequately supported by the
Government of Russia for its part of its own chemical weapons
destruction program. If one could view this in the nature of matching
funds, I think it is easy to understand. We have provided a great deal
of money, of Nunn-Lugar funding, to Russia, much of it for destruction
of their chemical weapons. They have not reciprocated by allocating or
spending any of their own money for the destruction of their chemical
weapons.
In addition, they have not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.
They have not complied with the terms of the so-called Wyoming
Memoranda, which is one of the methods by which we exchange information
about our chemical stocks in furtherance of an agreement to destroy
them. They have backed out of the bilateral destruction agreement,
which was our bilateral agreement to destroy our mutual stocks of
chemical weapons. They have not advanced a penny toward the development
of the facilities for the destruction of their weapons that are
currently being designed with U.S. Government money. In effect, they
have not shown any willingness to join us in the destruction of those
weapons which pose the most threat to the United States and other
people around the world.
As a result, partially in conformance with the terms of the chemical
weapons treaty, which was earlier adopted, and in conformance with S.
495, which had other specific requirements, and consistent with
requirements that the House of Representatives placed on the House-
passed version of the defense authorization bill, we provide five
specific requirements that the Russian Government will have to meet in
order to receive this funding.
First, that they show reasonable progress toward implementation of
the 1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement; second, that resolution of
outstanding compliance issues related to the Wyoming Memorandum of
Understanding and the BDA, that be resolved--at least that there be
progress toward that; third, a full and accurate Russian accounting of
its own CW program, as required by those previously mentioned
agreements; fourth, Russian ratification of the Chemical Weapons
Convention; and, fifth, bilateral agreement to cap the United States CW
destruction assistance and Russian commitment to pay for a portion of
their part of their own CW destruction costs.
As I said, these are reasonable requirements to be attached to U.S.
taxpayer dollars going to the country of Russia for the destruction of
their chemical weapons. I will discuss it in
[[Page S6988]]
further detail later, but it seems to me to be more than reasonable for
us to attach these conditions. If we do not, then additional taxpayer
money is going to be sent to Russia with no indication whatsoever that
Russia will ever support the program funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars
to support their chemical weapons destruction program.
Perhaps most important, the most that it appears right now that
Russia is inclined to do is to destroy those old chemical weapons that
pose an environmental concern to Russia with United States dollars at
the same time that they are using Russian dollars to continue a covert
development and production program of new chemical weapons. So it makes
no sense for us to be spending U.S. taxpayer dollars to help them
destroy the stocks of the old environmentally unsafe weapons that they
would like to get rid of anyway, at the same time they are using their
money to develop new chemical weapons and produce those new chemical
weapons that could someday be used against the United States--all in
violation of the chemical weapons treaty, I might add.
So that is the nature of the first amendment.
Amendment No. 605
(Purpose: To ensure the President and Congress receive unencumbered
advice from the directors of the national laboratories, the members of
the Nuclear Weapons Council, and the commander of the United States
Strategic Command regarding the safety, security, and reliability of
the United States nuclear weapons stockpile)
Mr. KYL. If there is no objection, the second amendment is amendment
No. 605. I call up that amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment
numbered 605.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 347, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
SEC. 1075. ADVICE TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS REGARDING THE
SAFETY, SECURITY, AND RELIABILITY OF UNITED
STATES NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons on
earth. The United States and its allies continue to rely on
nuclear weapons to deter potential adversaries from using
weapons of mass destruction. The safety and reliability of
the nuclear stockpile are essential to ensure its credibility
as a deterrent.
(2) On September 24, 1996, President Clinton signed the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
(3) Effective as of September 30, 1996, the United States
is prohibited by relevant provisions of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-377)
from conducting underground nuclear tests ``unless a foreign
state conducts a nuclear test after this date, at which time
the prohibition on United States nuclear testing is lifted''.
(4) Section 1436(b) of the National Defense Authorization
Act, Fiscal Year 1989 (Public Law 100-456; 42 U.S.C. 2121
note) requires the Secretary of Energy to ``establish and
support a program to assure that the United States is in a
position to maintain the reliability, safety, and continued
deterrent effect of its stockpile of existing nuclear weapons
designs in the event that a low-threshold or comprehensive
test ban on nuclear explosive testing is negotiated and
ratified.''.
(5) Section 3138(d) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1994 requires the President to submit an
annual report to Congress which sets forth ``any concerns
with respect to the safety, security, effectiveness, or
reliability of existing United States nuclear weapons raised
by the Stockpile Stewardship Program of the Department of
Energy''.
(6) President Clinton declared in July 1993 that ``to
assure that our nuclear deterrent remains unquestioned under
a test ban, we will explore other means of maintaining our
confidence in the safety, reliability, and the performance of
our weapons''. This decision was codified in a Presidential
Directive.
(7) Section 3138 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1994 also requires that the Secretary of
Energy establish a ``stewardship program to ensure the
preservation of the core intellectual and technical
competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons''.
(8) The plan of the Department of Energy to maintain the
safety and reliability of the United States nuclear stockpile
is known as the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program.
This approach is yet unproven. The ability of the United
States to maintain warheads without testing will require
development of new and sophisticated diagnostic technologies,
methods, and procedures. Current diagnostic technologies and
laboratory testing techniques are insufficient to certify the
future safety and reliability of the United States nuclear
stockpile. In the past these laboratory and diagnostic tools
were used in conjunction with nuclear testing.
(9) On August 11, 1995, President Clinton directed ``the
establishment of a new annual reporting and certification
requirement [to] ensure that our nuclear weapons remain safe
and reliable under a comprehensive test ban''.
(10) On the same day, the President noted that the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy have the
responsibility, after being ``advised by the Nuclear Weapons
Council, the Directors of DOE's nuclear weapons laboratories,
and the Commander of United States Strategic Command'', to
provide the President with the information to make the
certification referred to in paragraph (9).
(11) The Joint Nuclear Weapons Council established by
section 179 of title 10, United States Code, is responsible
for providing advice to the Secretary of Energy and Secretary
of Defense regarding nuclear weapons issues, including
``considering safety, security, and control issues for
existing weapons''. The Council plays a critical role in
advising Congress in matters relating to nuclear weapons.
(12) It is essential that the President receive well-
informed, objective, and honest opinions from his advisors
and technical experts regarding the safety, security, and
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.
(b) Policy.--
(1) In general.--It is the policy of the United States--
(A) to maintain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear
weapons stockpile; and
(B) as long as other nations covet or control nuclear
weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, to retain a
credible nuclear deterrent.
(2) Nuclear weapons stockpile.--It is in the security
interest of the United States to sustain the United States
nuclear weapons stockpile through programs relating to
stockpile stewardship, subcritical experiments, maintenance
of the weapons laboratories, and protection of the
infrastructure of the weapons complex.
(3) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(A) the United States should retain a triad of strategic
nuclear forces sufficient to deter any future hostile foreign
leadership with access to strategic nuclear forces from
acting against our vital interests;
(B) the United States should continue to maintain nuclear
forces of sufficient size and capability to hold at risk a
broad range of assets valued by such political and military
leaders; and
(C) the advice of the persons required to provide the
President and Congress with assurances of the safety,
security and reliability of the nuclear weapons force should
be scientifically based, without regard for politics, and of
the highest quality and integrity.
(c) Advice and Opinions Regarding Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile.--Any director of a nuclear weapons laboratory or
member of the Joint Nuclear Weapons Council, or the Commander
of United States Strategic Command, may submit to the
President or Congress advice or opinion in disagreement with,
or in addition to, the advice presented by the Secretary of
Energy or Secretary of Defense to the President, the National
Security Council, or Congress, as the case may be, regarding
the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons
stockpile.
(d) Expression of Individual Views.--No representative of a
government agency or managing contractor for a nuclear
weapons laboratory may in any way constrain a director of a
nuclear weapons laboratory, a member of the Joint Nuclear
Weapons Council, or the Commander of United States Strategic
Command from presenting individual views to the President,
the National Security Council, or Congress regarding the
safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons
stockpile.
(e) Prohibited Personnel Actions.--No representative of a
government agency or managing contractor may take any
administrative or personnel action against a director of a
nuclear weapons laboratory, a member of the Joint Nuclear
Weapons Council, or the Commander of the United States
Strategic Command, in order to prevent such individual from
expressing views under subsection (c) or (d) or as
retribution for expressing such views.
(f) Definitions.--
(1) Representative of a government agency.--The term
``representative of a government agency'' means any person
employed by, or receiving compensation from, any department
or agency of the Federal Government.
(2) Managing contractor.--The term ``managing contractor''
means the non-government entity specified by contract to
carry out the administrative functions of a nuclear weapons
laboratory.
(3) Nuclear weapons laboratory.--The term ``nuclear weapons
laboratory'' means any of the following:
(A) Los Alamos National Laboratory.
(B) Livermore National Laboratory.
(C) Sandia National Laboratories.
[[Page S6989]]
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment--and this is
really a very simple amendment that I think specific language will be
worked out on with members of the committee and hopefully could be
included as part of the managers' amendment--is simply to ensure that
the President of the United States receives direct and objective and
unencumbered advice regarding the safety and reliability and security
of the U.S. nuclear force from the directors of the national
laboratories and the members of the Nuclear Weapons Council.
Just one bit of background here. Both the national laboratories and
the Nuclear Weapons Council are supposed to give the President advice
about the safety, reliability, and security of our nuclear force. For
them to be able to do that in an objective way, they obviously need to
tell it as it is, ``tell it like it is,'' without any fear that they
are not adhering to any party line with respect to those issues.
This, in effect, extends the Goldwater-Nichols-like protection that
has previously been provided to members of the armed services, the
Joint Chiefs, for example, to the lab directors and the members of the
Nuclear Weapons Council so they can give the President unvarnished,
objective, accurate information, and that information can also come to
the Congress, all for the purpose of enabling us to set proper national
policy with respect to our nuclear weapons.
Mr. President, I will have more to say about this later. As I said, I
hope the amendment can be worked on and included as part of the
managers' amendment. We will discuss this amendment further later.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 9 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 996
and S. 997 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________