[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.

                          ____________________