[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 96 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7093-S7113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 778

    (Purpose: To amend title 18, United States Code, to revise the 
 requirements for procurement of products of Federal prison industries 
                   to meet needs of Federal agencies)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr. 
     Abraham, Mr. Robb, Mr. Helms, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Daschle, 
     and Mr. Burns, proposes an amendment numbered 778.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. 844. PRODUCTS OF FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES.

       (a) Purchases From Federal Prison Industries.--Section 4124 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking out 
     subsections (a) and (b) and inserting in lieu thereof the 
     following new subsections (a) and (b):
       ``(a) A Federal agency which has a requirement for a 
     specific product listed in the current edition of the catalog 
     required by subsection (d) shall--
       ``(1) provide a copy of the notice required by section 18 
     of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     416) to Federal Prison Industries at least 15 days before the 
     issuance of a solicitation of offers for the procurement of 
     such product;
       ``(2) use competitive procedures for the procurement of 
     that product, unless--
       ``(A) the head of the agency justifies the use of 
     procedures other than competitive procedures in accordance 
     with section 2304(f) of title 10 or section 303(f) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 253(f)); or
       ``(B) the Attorney General makes the determination 
     described in subsection (b)(1) within 15 days after receiving 
     a notice of the requirement pursuant to paragraph (1); and
       ``(3) consider a timely offer from Federal Prison 
     Industries for award in accordance with the specifications 
     and evaluation factors specified in the solicitation.
       ``(b) A Federal agency which has a requirement for a 
     product referred to in subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) on a noncompetitive basis, negotiate a contract with 
     Federal Prison Industries for the purchase of the product if 
     the Attorney General personally determines, within the period 
     described in subsection (a)(2)(B), that--

[[Page S7094]]

       ``(A) it is not reasonable to expect that Federal Prison 
     Industries would be selected for award of the contract on a 
     competitive basis; and
       ``(B) it is necessary to award the contract to Federal 
     Prison Industries in order--
       ``(i) to maintain work opportunities that are essential to 
     the safety and effective administration of the penal facility 
     at which the contract would be performed; or
       ``(ii) to permit diversification into the manufacture of a 
     new product that has been approved for sale by the Federal 
     Prison Industries board of directors in accordance with this 
     chapter; and
       ``(2) award the contract to Federal Prison Industries if 
     the contracting officer determines that Federal Prison 
     industries can meet the requirements of the agency with 
     respect to the product in a timely manner and at a fair and 
     reasonable price.''.
       (b) Limitation on New Products and Expansion of 
     Production.--Section 4122(b) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as 
     paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (4):
       ``(4) Federal Prison Industries shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, concentrate any effort to produce a new 
     product or to expand significantly the production of an 
     existing product on products that are otherwise produced with 
     non-United States labor.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (6), as so redesignated, by striking out 
     ``paragraph (4)(B)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``paragraph (5)(B)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senators 
Abraham, Robb, Helms, Kempthorne, Daschle, and Burns. This is to 
implement the recommendation of the National Performance Review that we 
should require Federal prison industries to compete commercially for 
Federal agencies' business instead of having a legally protected 
monopoly.
  Mr. President, our amendment will eliminate the requirement for 
Federal agencies to purchase prisoner-made goods even when they cost 
more and are of lesser quality. This amendment will ensure that the 
taxpayers get the best possible value for their Federal procurement 
dollars. If a Federal agency can get a better product at a lower price 
from the private sector, it should be permitted to do so. The taxpayers 
will get the savings.
  Many in Government and in industry point out that the Federal Prison 
Industries' products are often more expensive than commercial products, 
inferior in quality, or both. For example, the Deputy Commander of the 
Defense Logistics Agency wrote in a May 3, 1996, letter to the House 
that Federal Prison Industries had a 42-percent delinquency rate in its 
clothing and textile deliveries, compared to a 6-percent rate for the 
commercial industry. For this record of poor performance, the Federal 
Prison Industries charged prices that were an average of 13-percent 
higher than commercial prices. Five years earlier, the DOD inspector 
general reached the same conclusion, reporting that the Federal Prison 
Industries' contracts were more expensive than contracts for comparable 
commercial products by an average of 15 percent. Now, the Department of 
Defense made roughly $150 million in purchases from Federal Prison 
Industries last year, and so this is currently costing the Department 
of Defense, alone, $25 million.
  Mr. President, it just makes no sense that, with all of the 
advantages in terms of labor price, which is nominal in prison, that 
they can assert a monopoly which gives them the right to sell to the 
Defense Department products at a greater cost than the Defense 
Department could buy them in the commercial market, and this amendment 
would correct that.
  At this point, I want to yield to my good friend and colleague from 
Michigan, Senator Abraham, for his statement. I ask unanimous consent 
that I be immediately recognized thereafter to complete my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The junior Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend who 
brings us, I think, a wise amendment tonight, which I am happy to 
cosponsor. This is a pretty simple amendment, really. It does not say 
that anybody should get a preference over the Prison Industries, but 
simply that those who are in the private sector, who create jobs for 
people, who play by the rules and work hard, ought to have the same 
opportunity to bid on Federal contracts that the Federal Prison 
Industries themselves enjoy.
  As my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, has indicated, we have 
numerous examples that suggest that, right now, the Federal taxpayers 
are not getting their money's worth when Federal agencies purchase 
office equipment, because the Prison Industries' costs are greater than 
would be the case if the private sector were involved. Moreover, of 
course, it is our view that if competition was injected into the 
system, the cost would go down, even though it is conceivable that the 
Prison Industries would continue to be the contractor chosen for the 
production and provision of such furnishings.
  In my State, Mr. President, we have a lot of people in this industry. 
I have spoken with them in the plants in which they work--not just the 
people who run the plants, but the people working on the floor making 
the finest furniture in the world. They have an interesting take on the 
way we do business. They say: Doesn't it seem unusual that we should 
work hard, 40 hours a week, and sometimes more, to produce a high-
quality piece of furniture, and that we should have a certain amount of 
the money we earn for that hard work sent to Washington to pay taxes, 
or sent to Lansing, or wherever, and then that we should see those tax 
dollars go to the Federal Government to be used, at least in part, to 
support the development of an industry that competes with us and 
prevents us from having the opportunity to create better paying jobs 
and more jobs?
  That doesn't make sense to them, Mr. President, and it doesn't make 
sense to me. It seems that we ought to pride ourselves here on 
providing our taxpayers the most efficient Government possible. That 
ought to mean that when we purchase equipment and furniture for the 
Federal departments and agencies, we get the best bargain possible and 
that we at least make sure that folks who work hard and play by the 
rules in the furniture industry, or any other industry, have the 
opportunity to benefit from the Federal contracts that are let to 
purchase furniture and other sorts of items that help us in the Federal 
agencies and departments. To me, this is just pure common sense. So for 
that reason I support this amendment.
  I think all we are asking for here is a level playing field--no 
special preference, no exclusion of the private sector from the bidding 
process. If the furniture made by the Federal Prison Industries is the 
best deal, then that is who ought to be doing the work. But if it is 
not, then the taxpayers deserve the best deal.

  As to a broader point, I just want to say this. I believe that people 
in prisons should work. This is in no way, or should it be in any way, 
interpreted as an amendment designed to suggest that those who are 
doing hard time should stop doing hard time or that those who are 
learning trades and skills ought to be in any way prevented from doing 
so. But it seems to me that what makes sense is for the Prison 
Industries to focus primarily on providing services, and so on, in 
areas where they aren't competing with American workers and American 
jobs in the private sector. I think, at a minimum, we should level the 
playing field so that that can occur.
  For those reasons, I am happy to support this amendment as a 
cosponsor. I look forward to the continuation of this debate tomorrow 
on the floor as well.
  Under the previous order, I yield the floor back to the Senator from 
Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the senior Senator 
from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the chairman of the committee who, I 
understand, wants to make a statement at this time.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Michigan, Senator Levin, would seriously damage the functioning of 
the Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated known as FPI.
  FPI is the Bureau of Prisons' most important inmate program. It keeps 
inmates productively occupied and reduces inmate idleness and the 
violence

[[Page S7095]]

and disruptive behavior associated with it. Thus it is essential to the 
security of Federal correctional institutions, the communities in which 
they are located, and the safety of Federal correctional staff and 
inmates. Eliminating FPI's mandatory source status in law would 
dramatically reduce the number of inmates FPI would be able to employ. 
The inmate idleness this would create would seriously undermine the 
safety and security of America's Federal prisons.
  In addition to the general benefit of keeping our prison population 
employed, the Federal Prison Industries Program has the added benefit 
that 50 percent of the wages paid to prisoners employed under the 
program are used to pay off fines and provide restitution to the 
victims of their crimes. This is an important benefit that must not be 
impeded.
  FPI has no other outlet for its products than Federal agencies. The 
constraints within which FPI operates cause it to be less efficient 
than its private sector counterparts. While private sector companies 
specialize and become highly efficient in certain product areas, FPI, 
in an attempt to limit its market share in any one area, has 
diversified its product line. Private sector companies strive to obtain 
the most modern, efficient equipment to minimize the labor component of 
their manufacturing costs. FPI, on the other hand must keep its 
manufacturing process as labor intensive as possible in order to employ 
the maximum number of inmates.
  Since FPI operates its factories in secure correctional environments, 
it faces additional constraints that limit its efficiency. For example, 
every tool must be checked out at the beginning of the day, checked in 
before lunch, checked out again in the afternoon, and checked in at the 
end of the day. In addition, Federal Prison Industries factories are 
occasionally forced to shut down because of inmate unrest or 
institutional disturbances. The costs associated with civilian 
supervision and numerous measures necessary to maintain the security of 
the prison add substantially to the cost of production.
  It should be noted that the average Federal inmate has an 8th grade 
education, is 37 years old, is serving a 10-year sentence for a drug 
related offense, and has never held a steady job. According to a recent 
study by an independent firm, the overall productivity rate of an 
inmate with a background like this is approximately \1/4\ that of a 
civilian worker.
  FPI must have some method of offsetting these inefficiencies if it is 
expected to acquire a reasonable share of Government contracts and 
remain self financing. The offsetting advantage that Congress has 
provided is the mandatory sourcing requirements in section 4124 of 
title 18, United States Code. This section requires that Federal 
agencies purchase products made by FPI as long as those products meet 
customer needs for quality, price, and timeliness of delivery. If the 
product is not currently manufactured by FPI, or if the FPI is not 
competitive in quality, price or timeliness, Federal Prison Industries 
will grant a waiver to allow the Federal agency to purchase the product 
from private sector suppliers.
  The amendment proposed by Senator Levin would force the Attorney 
General to require that Federal agencies purchase FPI products on a 
case-by-case basis, increasing paperwork and administrative expense 
unnecessarily. The current FPI mandatory source requirement provides a 
steady flow of work to the inmate population and reduces the 
requirement for FPI to expend large amounts of money on advertising and 
marketing. If such expenses had to be incurred, sales levels and market 
share would have to be expanded to cover them. This would have an 
adverse impact on private sector companies in the same businesses as 
FPI.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Levin amendment. Mr. President, I 
ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Council of Prison Locals 
of the AFL-CIO be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Federal Prison Council 33,


                                                     (AFL-CIO)

                                                    June 19, 1997.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator. I am writing to express the strong opinion of 
     the Council of Prison Locals, American Federation of 
     Government Employees, against Senator Levin's proposed 
     amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. The Levin 
     Amendment would eliminate mandatory source status for Federal 
     Prison Industries (FPI), a wholly-owned corporation of the 
     Federal Government.
       The Council of Prison Locals is the exclusive 
     representative of 22,000 bargaining unit employees nationwide 
     working in the nation's Federal Prisons. Our members feel 
     that this is the Bureau of Prisons most important 
     correctional program.
       We have several concerns with the Levin Amendment. The 
     first concern is that FPI should be looked at as part of the 
     overall Bureau of Prisons program. This should include 
     hearings on the Judiciary Committee. We feel the safety of 
     thousands of Correctional Workers is in jeopardy because of 
     the ``perception'' that FPI is somehow controlling the 
     Federal market. This could not be further from the truth. We 
     believe that FPI is part of safe prison management of our 
     facilities and should not be an amendment to some unrelated 
     legislation.
       We urge you to oppose the Levin Amendment and keep the 
     Federal Prison System safe for its workers.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Phil Glover,

                                Northeast Regional Vice President,
                                   Council of Prison Locals, AFGE.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, last July, a master chief petty officer of the Navy 
testified before the House National Security Committee that the FPI 
monopoly on the Government furniture contract has undermined the Navy's 
ability to improve living conditions for its sailors. This was his 
testimony.

       Speaking frankly, the FPI product is inferior, costs more, 
     takes longer to procure. FPI has, in my opinion, exploited 
     their special status, instead of making changes that would 
     make them more efficient and competitive. The Navy and other 
     services need your support to change the law and have Federal 
     Prison Industries compete with private sector furniture 
     manufacturers under GSA contract. Without this change, we 
     will not be serving sailors or taxpayers in the most 
     effective and efficient way.

  There was a coalition that joined together to try to provide for 
competition. All we are asking for is the private sector to be allowed 
to compete when its product costs less and when its product is a better 
quality. The competition in contracting at coalition is made up of 28 
organizations and 204 businesses. Their letter, in part, reads as 
follows, that this amendment would implement a recommendation of the 
National Performance Review which stated that our Government should 
``take away Federal Prison Industries' status as a mandatory source of 
Federal supplies and be required to compete commercially for Federal 
agencies' business.'' This solution would help manufacturers by 
eliminating the barriers to competition and allowing the bid process to 
take place.
  We received a letter from Access Products of Colorado Springs, CO. 
They were denied an opportunity to bid on an Air Force contract for 
toner cartridges because Federal Prison Industries exercised its right 
to take the contract on a sole-source basis.
  This is a small business in Colorado trying to sell to the 
Government. They have to compete with incredibly cheap labor in the 
prisons, which ranges between 23 cents an hour and $1.15 an hour. That 
is labor paid in the prison. This small business in Colorado makes this 
product, and they want to sell it to the Government. Here is what they 
write.

       My company bid $22 a unit. The Federal Prison Industries' 
     bid was $45 a unit.

  The Government ended up paying $45. So here you have a small business 
struggling to survive against Federal Prison Industries paying 
incredibly cheap prices for its labor, comes in with a bid of half of 
what that product is bid by the FPI and loses the bid.
  We are not trying to get a monopoly for the private sector. We are 
trying to eliminate this monopoly which is assumed by FPI, which allows 
it to say, this product, since it is produced by FPI, must be used by 
the Federal agencies, even though it costs the taxpayers more and, in 
many cases, is nowhere near as good in quality.
  This is what the Access Products folks in Colorado Springs went on to 
say:

       The way I see it, the government just overspent my tax 
     dollars to the tune of $1,978.

[[Page S7096]]

      The total amount of my bid was less than that. Do you 
     seriously believe this type of product is cost effective? I 
     lost business. My tax dollars were misused because of unfair 
     procurement practices mandated by Federal regulation. This is 
     a prime example, and I am certain not the only one, of how 
     the procurement system is being misused and small businesses 
     in this country are being excluded from competition with the 
     full support of Federal regulations and the seeming approval 
     of Congress. It's far past time to curtail this company known 
     as Federal Prison Industries and require them to be 
     competitive for the benefit of all taxpayers.

  The Veterans' Administration sought repeal of this mandatory 
preference on several occasions on the ground that FPI prices for 
textiles, furniture, and other products are routinely higher than 
identical items purchased from commercial sources. Most recently, 
Veterans Administration officials estimated that repeal of this 
preference would save $18 million over a 4-year period for their agency 
alone, making that money available for veterans services.
  We all want to do what we can do reasonably to make sure that work is 
available for Federal prisons. But the way that we are doing it is all 
wrong.
  As one small businessman in the furniture industry put it in very 
emotional testimony at a House hearing last year:

       Is it justice? Is it justice that Federal Prison Industries 
     would step in and take business away from a disabled Vietnam 
     veteran who was twice wounded fighting for our country and 
     give that work to criminals who have trampled on honest 
     citizens' rights, therefore effectively destroying and 
     bankrupting that hero's business which the Veterans 
     Administration suggested he enter?

  Here you have a veteran of Vietnam who has entered into the business 
at the suggestion of the Veterans Administration, and he is not allowed 
to compete on a level playing field with Federal Prison Industries.

  Our amendment is supported by the Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Federation of Independent Business, the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the Business and Industry Industrial Furniture 
Manufacturers Association, the American Apparel Manufacturers 
Association, the Industrial Fabrics Association International, the 
Competition in Contracting Act Coalition, and hundreds of small 
businesses from Michigan and around the country.
  Mr. President, there is something fundamentally wrong with the 
procurement system which says that a small businessperson cannot 
compete even though his price is lower than a Federal Prison 
Industries' price, which has the cheapest labor in the country, 23 
cents an hour to $1.15 an hour, and when we tell the veterans who open 
up small businesses and want to supply the Veterans Administration with 
a product, that they can't compete because the Federal Prison 
Industries has a monopoly on a product. We are not dealing fairly with 
either that veteran or that small businessperson.
  There are many products which this Government buys that are imported 
which are not produced with American labor of small business, and 
instead of diversifying to produce those products currently imported 
and made with non-American labor, we have Federal Prison Industries 
continuing to focus on textiles, furniture, on items which displace 
American workers and American small businesses because they have a 
monopoly.
  We are not seeking a preference. I want to drive home that point. We 
are not saying Federal Prison Industries should not be allowed to 
compete. It is the opposite. We are saying American small businesses 
should be allowed to compete where their price is cheaper and when 
their quality is better. For Heaven's sake, they ought to be allowed to 
sell to their Government and not be faced with a monopoly which charges 
more for even a less quality product frequently, as these letters 
explain, and nonetheless, sells to the Government at a greater expense 
to the taxpayers.
  That is why the NFIB, the Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, all of these small businesses in all of 
our States are pleading with us to end this monopoly situation.
  Let me read from some of their letters. The National Federation of 
Independent Business says, in a letter dated June 19, 1997:

       Today, federal agencies are forced to buy prison-made 
     products through Federal Prison Industries (FPI) . . . This 
     is yet another example of avoidable government waste as 
     virtually all such items are available from the private 
     sector, which provides them more efficiently and at lower 
     prices. In addition, such mandatory purchases from the FPI 
     costs America jobs. Firms that can't enter an industry or 
     expand production, can't hire new employees.

  The Chamber of Commerce says, in a letter dated June 19, 1997:

       The Chamber has long-standing policy that the government 
     should not perform the production of goods or services for 
     itself or others if acceptable privately owned and operated 
     services are or can be made available for such purposes. We 
     recognize the importance of the productive training and 
     employment of our nation's inmate population. However, we 
     believe that our federal prison system should not be given 
     preferential treatment at the cost of our nation's small 
     business owners. We believe that there are other substantial 
     sources of work available to inmates that would not infringe 
     upon the private sector's opportunities to compete for 
     government contracts.

  The National Association of Manufacturers says, in a letter dated 
June 25, 1997:

       The present system that gives FPI a virtual lock on federal 
     government contracts has hurt thousands of businesses, 
     resulted in higher cost(s) for goods and services bought by 
     the government and in many cases has resulted in loss of jobs 
     and business opportunities for our members. Removal of the 
     ``FPI mandatory source status is an idea [whose] time has 
     come . . .

  Mr. President, our amendment would not require FPI to close any of 
its facilities, or force FPI to eliminate any jobs for federal 
prisoners, or undermine FPI's ability to ensure that inmates are 
productively occupied. It would simply require FPI--which currently 
ranks as one of the sixty largest federal contractors--to compete for 
federal contracts on the same terms as all other federal contractors. 
That is simply justice to the hard-working citizens in the private 
sector, with whom FPI would be required to compete.
  The obvious fact is that FPI already has built-in competitive 
advantages, even if it is forced to compete for its contracts. First 
and foremost, FPI pays inmates a fraction of the wages paid to private 
sector working in competing industries. FPI's pay scales, as of March 
27, 1995, were as follows:

                                                      Compensation rate
Grade:
    1........................................................$1.15/hour
    2.........................................................0.92/hour
    3.........................................................0.69/hour
    4.........................................................0.46/hour
    5.........................................................0.23/hour

Second, the Federal government provides land to FPI for the 
construction of its manufacturing facilities. Third, FPI pays no 
corporate income taxes and has no need to provide health or retirement 
benefits to its workers.
  On top of these advantages, the taxpayers provide a direct subsidy to 
Federal Prison Industries products by picking up the cost of feeding, 
clothing, and housing the inmates who provide the labor. There is 
simply no reason why the taxpayers should be required to provide an 
indirect subsidy as well, by requiring federal agencies to purchase 
products from FPI even when they are more expensive and of a lower 
quality than competing commercial items.
  Mr. President, I am a supporter of the idea of putting federal 
inmates to work. A strong prison work program not only reduces inmates 
idleness and prison disruption, but can also help build a work ethic, 
provide job skills, and enable prisoners to return to productive 
society upon their release.
  However, I believe that a prison work program must be conducted in a 
manner that does not unfairly eliminate the jobs of hard-working 
citizens who have not committed crimes. FPI will be able to achieve 
this result only if it diversifies its product lines and avoids the 
temptation to build its workforce by continuing to displace private 
sector jobs in its traditional lines of work.

  That is why I participated in an effort in the early 1990's to help 
Federal Prison Industries identify new markets that it could expand 
into without displacing private sector jobs. In 1990, the House 
Appropriations Committee requested a study to identify new 
opportunities for FPI to meet its growth requirements, assess FPI's 
impact on private sector businesses and labor, and evaluate the need 
for changes to FPI's laws and mandates. That study conducted by 
Deloitte & Touche on behalf of FPI, concluded that FPI should meet its 
growth needs by using new approaches and new markets, not by expanding 
its production in traditional

[[Page S7097]]

industries. The Deloitte & Touche study concluded:

       FPI needs to maintain sales in industries that produce 
     products such as traditional furniture and furnishings, 
     apparel and textile products, and electronic assemblies to 
     maintain inmate employment during the transition.
       These industries should not be expanded, and FPI should 
     limit its market shares to current levels.

  I followed up on that report by meeting with FPI officials and 
participating in a ``summit'' process, sponsored by the Brookings 
Institute, designed to develop alternative growth strategies for FPI. 
The summit process resulted in two suggested areas for growth: entering 
partnerships with private sector companies to replace off-shore labor; 
and entering the recycling business in areas such as mattresses and 
electrical motors.
  Unfortunately, FPI has chosen to take the exact opposite course of 
action. Last year, for instance, FPI acted unilaterally to virtually 
double its furniture sales from $70 million to $130 million and from 15 
percent of the federal market to 25 percent of the federal market, over 
the next five years. This follows a steady growth in FPI's market share 
which has already taken place, unannounced, over the last ten years. In 
direct contravention of the Deloitte & Touche recommendations, FPI has 
announced its intention to undertake similar market share increases in 
other traditional product lines, such as work clothing and protective 
clothing.
  This amendment would return FPI to the course prescribed by Deloitte 
& Touche and the Brookings summit by requiring it to concentrate any 
future expansion efforts, to the maximum extent practicable, on 
products currently sold to federal agencies that would otherwise 
imported. Expansion in existing lines of business would still be 
possible, but only as a last resort, and only as a result of 
competition, on a level playing field, with private industry.
  Mr. President, this amendment is appropriate on this bill, because 
the Department of Defense is FPI's biggest customer, and pays by far 
the largest subsidy for FPI's overpriced products. The competition 
required by our amendment will save millions of dollars for the 
Department of Defense and other federal agencies. It should also 
improve FPI's performance, forcing it to become more efficient and 
productive, and advancing FPI's objectives of instilling a strong work 
ethic and providing a positive job experience. Working in non-
productive and uncompetitive jobs may reduce inmate idleness, but it 
does not provide realistic work experience that will translate to the 
private sector.
  We need to have jobs for prisoners, but it is unfair and wasteful to 
allow FPI to designate whose jobs it will take, and when it will take 
them. Competition will be better for working men and women around the 
country, better for the taxpayer, and better for FPI.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my friend, the Senator. He has 
my support. I will vote with him tomorrow. He is right on.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Virginia.
  Mr. President, I understand there will be a period of time tomorrow 
immediately prior to voting on this amendment for the proponents and 
opponents to summarize arguments. I think that will be part of the 
unanimous consent request which is going to be propounded in a few 
moments.
  I thank the Chair.
  I thank my good friend from Virginia.
  I yield the floor.


                                  FFTF

  Mr GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from New 
Hampshire, [Mr. Smith] in a colloquy to clarify a provision within the 
bill's title on Department of Energy national security programs. 
Section 3134 limits, for a prescribed time period, the funds made 
available by the National Defense Authorization Act for the purpose of 
evaluating tritium production to two options: use of a commercial light 
water reactor or building an accelerator. As you know, DOE has decided 
to evaluate, in addition to a commercial reactor and an accelerator, 
the Fast Flux Test Facility, as known as the ``FFTF,'' as a possible 
back-up production option to provide interim quantities of tritium. The 
FFTF is currently, and in the future proposed to be, funded from 
sources not covered by this bill, specifically, the non-defense 
Environmental Management account and the civilian Nuclear Energy 
account. Accordingly, would the Subcommittee chairman agree that the 
limitation contained in section 3134 is not applicable to FFTF and 
similar options that are funded through programs wholly unrelated to 
that monies provided by this defense bill.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. If the Senator would yield, that is 
correct. The provision being proposed is applicable only to the stated 
plans in the Department's ``dual track'' strategy. This bill would not 
affect the Fast Flux Facility, because that facility is currently 
funded through a non-defense account. This bill does not have authority 
over these funds, and therefore, this provision would in no way alter 
the commitment made by former Secretary O'Leary to keep the FFTF in a 
hot stand-by condition.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator for this clarification.


                    Air Force Sergeants Association

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on Monday, the Senate adopted a symbolic, 
yet important amendment which grants a Federal charter to the Air Force 
Sergeants Association, a highly respected nonprofit, veterans 
association.
  Over the past 36 years, the Air Force Sergeants Association has been 
stalwart in representing the interests of Air Force enlisted men and 
women. The association has served a vital purpose by informing Members 
of Congress of the concerns of enlisted servicemembers and their 
families, and likewise informing enlisted personnel where Members of 
Congress stand on critical personnel issues, such as pay, military 
medical health care, quality of life and earned retirement benefits for 
active duty, Reserve component, and military retirees.
  This Federal Charter is a symbolic gesture that shows Congress 
appreciation to the Air Force Sergeants Association for the outstanding 
service they provide and to the dedicated men and women whom the 
association represents. We pay tribute to the noncommissioned officers 
who form the backbone of the Air Force.
  Noncommissioned officers turn the wrenches, prepare the aircraft, 
walk the perimeters, and train ``new'' junior officers as they report 
to their first assignments directly from their commissioning source. 
The contribution of our noncommissioned officers cannot be overstated 
whether as major contributors to dismantling the Iron Curtain, winning 
the Persian Gulf War, to carrying out vital peacekeeping missions 
throughout the world or projecting American power wherever and whenever 
it is needed.
  As the Air Force celebrates its 50th anniversary, Congress honors the 
commitment and contribution of enlisted servicemembers to our national 
security. Granting this Federal charter demonstrates our gratitude for 
their outstanding efforts.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the support of my colleagues for this 
amendment. It is with great honor and gratitude that I was asked to 
introduce this legislation by my friends at the Air Force Sergeants 
Association.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Air Force Sergeants 
Association Federal charter amendment, amendment number 728, be printed 
again in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the amendment was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 728

  (Purpose: To provide a Federal charter for the Air Force Sergeants 
                              Association)

       Insert after title XI, the following new title:
   TITLE XII--FEDERAL CHARTER FOR THE AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION

     SEC. 1201. RECOGNITION AND GRANT OF FEDERAL CHARTER.

       The Air Force Sergeants Association, a nonprofit 
     corporation organized under the laws of the District of 
     Columbia, is recognized as such and granted a Federal 
     charter.

     SEC. 1202. POWERS.

       The Air Force Sergeants Association (in this title referred 
     to as the ``association'') shall have only those powers 
     granted to it through its bylaws and articles of 
     incorporation filed in the District of Columbia and subject 
     to the laws of the District of Columbia.

     SEC. 1203. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of the association are those provided in its 
     bylaws and articles of incorporation and shall include the 
     following:

[[Page S7098]]

       (1) To help maintain a highly dedicated and professional 
     corps of enlisted personnel within the United States Air 
     Force, including the United States Air Force Reserve, and the 
     Air National Guard.
       (2) To support fair and equitable legislation and 
     Department of the Air Force policies and to influence by 
     lawful means departmental plans, programs, policies, and 
     legislative proposals that affect enlisted personnel of the 
     Regular Air Force, the Air Force Reserve, and the Air 
     National Guard, its retirees, and other veterans of enlisted 
     service in the Air Force.
       (3) To actively publicize the roles of enlisted personnel 
     in the United States Air Force.
       (4) To participate in civil and military activities, youth 
     programs, and fundraising campaigns that benefit the United 
     States Air Force.
       (5) To provide for the mutual welfare of members of the 
     association and their families.
       (6) To assist in recruiting for the United States Air 
     Force.
       (7) To assemble together for social activities.
       (8) To maintain an adequate Air Force for our beloved 
     country.
       (9) To foster among the members of the association a 
     devotion to fellow airmen.
       (10) To serve the United States and the United States Air 
     Force loyally, and to do all else necessary to uphold and 
     defend the Constitution of the United States.

     SEC. 1204. SERVICE OF PROCESS.

       With respect to service of process, the association shall 
     comply with the laws of the District of Columbia and those 
     States in which it carries on its activities in furtherance 
     of its corporate purposes.

     SEC. 1205. MEMBERSHIP.

       Except as provided in section 1208(g), eligibility for 
     membership in the association and the rights and privileges 
     of members shall be as provided in the bylaws and articles of 
     incorporation of the association.

     SEC. 1206. BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

       Except as provided in section 1208(g), the composition of 
     the board of directors of the association and the 
     responsibilities of the board shall be as provided in the 
     bylaws and articles of incorporation of the association and 
     in conformity with the laws of the District of Columbia.

     SEC. 1207. OFFICERS.

       Except as provided in section 1208(g), the positions of 
     officers of the association and the election of members to 
     such positions shall be as provided in the bylaws and 
     articles of incorporation of the association and in 
     conformity with the laws of the District of Columbia.

     SEC. 1208. RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) Income and Compensation.--No part of the income or 
     assets of the association may inure to the benefit of any 
     member, officer, or director of the association or be 
     distributed to any such individual during the life of this 
     charter. Nothing in this subsection may be construed to 
     prevent the payment of reasonable compensation to the 
     officers and employees of the association or reimbursement 
     for actual and necessary expenses in amounts approved by the 
     board of directors.
       (b) Loans.--The association may not make any loan to any 
     member, officer, director, or employee of the association.
       (c) Issuance of Stock and Payment of Dividends.--The 
     association may not issue any shares of stock or declare or 
     pay any dividends.
       (d) Disclaimer of Congressional or Federal Approval.--The 
     association may not claim the approval of the Congress or the 
     authorization of the Federal Government for any of its 
     activities by virtue of this title.
       (e) Corporate Status.--The association shall maintain its 
     status as a corporation organized and incorporated under the 
     laws of the District of Columbia.
       (f) Corporate Function.--The association shall function as 
     an educational, patriotic, civic, historical, and research 
     organization under the laws of the District of Columbia.
       (g) Nondiscrimination.--In establishing the conditions of 
     membership in the association and in determining the 
     requirements for serving on the board of directors or as an 
     officer of the association, the association may not 
     discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, 
     handicap, age, or national origin.

     SEC. 1209. LIABILITY.

       The association shall be liable for the acts of its 
     officers, directors, employees, and agents whenever such 
     individuals act within the scope of their authority.

     SEC. 1210. MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS.

       (a) Books and Records of Account.--The association shall 
     keep correct and complete books and records of account and 
     minutes of any proceeding of the association involving any of 
     its members, the board of directors, or any committee having 
     authority under the board of directors.
       (b) Names and Addresses of Members.--The association shall 
     keep at its principal office a record of the names and 
     addresses of all members having the right to vote in any 
     proceeding of the association.
       (c) Right to Inspect Books and Records.--All books and 
     records of the association may be inspected by any member 
     having the right to vote in any proceeding of the 
     association, or by any agent or attorney of such member, for 
     any proper purpose at any reasonable time.
       (d) Application of State Law.--This section may not be 
     construed to contravene any applicable State law.

     SEC. 1211. AUDIT OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.

       The first section of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide 
     for audit of accounts of private corporations established 
     under Federal law'', approved August 30, 1964 (36 U.S.C. 
     1101), is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the paragraph (77) added by section 
     1811 of Public Law 104-201 (110 Stat. 2762) as paragraph 
     (78); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(79) Air Force Sergeants Association.''.

     SEC. 1212. ANNUAL REPORT.

       The association shall annually submit to Congress a report 
     concerning the activities of the association during the 
     preceding fiscal year. The annual report shall be submitted 
     on the same date as the report of the audit required by 
     reason of the amendment made in section 1211. The annual 
     report shall not be printed as a public document.

     SEC. 1213. RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL 
                   CHARTER.

       The right to alter, amend, or repeal this title is 
     expressly reserved to Congress.

     SEC. 1214. TAX-EXEMPT STATUS REQUIRED AS CONDITION OF 
                   CHARTER.

       If the association fails to maintain its status as an 
     organization exempt from taxation as provided in the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 the charter granted in this title shall 
     terminate.

     SEC. 1215. TERMINATION.

       The charter granted in this title shall expire if the 
     association fails to comply with any of the provisions of 
     this title.

     SEC. 1216. DEFINITION OF STATE.

       For purposes of this title, the term ``State'' includes the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the 
     territories and possessions of the United States.


                           Amendment No. 420

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of an amendment 
offered by my colleagues, Messrs. Cochran and Durbin, to correct a 
significant deficiency in our export licensing system.
  I will speak today of the current practice of allowing the export 
from the United States of high-powered, dual-use computers--machines 
that until very recently were called supercomputers--without any prior 
U.S. Government assessment of their end uses or end users. The 
amendment takes a significant step to correct this problem--not by 
banning the export of such machines, but merely by requiring exporters 
to obtain an individual validated export license before exporting them 
from the United States or reexporting them from elsewhere.
  The amendment specifically requires a license for the export of 
computers with a composite theoretical performance level equal to or 
greater than 2,000 million theoretical operations per second [MTOPS], 
when such machines are destined to a group of countries that now 
receive such computers--up to a level of 7,000 MTOPS--without U.S. 
Government end use or end user checks.
  The specific group of controlled countries--the so-called ``Tier 3'' 
countries--is described as follows in the Bureau of Export 
Administration's Report to Congress for Calendar Year 1996: ``* * * 
countries posing proliferation, diversion or other security risks.'' So 
we are dealing here with certain countries that our government, on the 
basis of all the information at its disposal, has determined pose risks 
to our security.


                          Some Ancient History

  This is not the first time I have spoken about the proliferation 
risks associated with high-powered computers. On October 31, 1989, I 
spoke of the dangers from supercomputers and super bombs (Congressional 
Record, 10/31/89, p. S-14382 ff.).
  On that occasion, I reminded my colleagues of the role computers play 
in designing nuclear weapons, and this particular application will only 
grow in importance now that the world appears heading for a ban on all 
nuclear explosions. Though it is true indeed that countries do not need 
high-powered computers to build the bomb--witness America's 1945-
vintage Fat Man and Little Boy bombs--it is well recognized today that 
such computers are absolutely essential to developing advanced nuclear 
weapon designs, including H-bombs, especially when nuclear test 
explosions are prohibited. These computers are also useful in designing 
nuclear weapon delivery systems, the full gamut advanced conventional 
weapons systems, and have other national security applications--
cryptography, for example.

[[Page S7099]]

  Over a decade ago, in January 1986, America's three nuclear weapon 
labs--the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia National 
Laboratories--issued an unclassified report aptly titled, ``The Need 
for Supercomputers in Nuclear Weapons Design.'' The following extracts 
clearly identify the utility of supercomputers--as defined back in 
1986--in the design and improvement of our Nation's nuclear weapons:

       Large-scale computers are essential to carrying out the 
     weapons program mission. Computers provide essential 
     understanding and enable us to simulate extremely complicated 
     physical processes . . . Computers enable us to evaluate 
     performance and safety over the decades of a weapon system's 
     lifetime . . . computers enable us to verify weapon designs 
     within testing limits.
       With large-scale computers, we have been able to improve 
     our designs by optimizing design parameters, while reducing 
     the number of costly experiments in the design process . . . 
     Tests involving high explosives have been reduced from 180 
     tests for a 1955-vintage weapon to fewer than 5 for today's 
     weapons because of computation.
       Computers enable us to extrapolate to new capabilities . . 
     . it is this computational capability, driven by the needs of 
     the weapons design, that has made possible new concepts and 
     enhanced safety in weapons.
       The inability to calculate solutions to complex problems 
     [during the years of the Manhattan Project] hampered 
     development and forced weapons designers to build in large 
     margins against error (e.g., large amounts of high explosive, 
     which increased weight to such an extent that some designers 
     were uncertain the devices could actually be carried by 
     existing aircraft) . . . It has been estimated that a team of 
     scientists using the calculators of the 1940s would take five 
     years to solve what it takes a Cray computer one second to 
     perform.
       Without supercomputers, the nation's nuclear weapons 
     program would be deprived of much of its vitality . . . 
     supercomputing is essential . . . in providing us with a tool 
     to simulate the complex processes going on during a 
     nuclear explosion . . . computers enable us to infer real-
     environment weapon performance from underground nuclear 
     tests.
       The computer becomes absolutely essential in the evolution 
     of a design that will survive the ``fratricide'' threat . . . 
     the computer is essential in designing a system whose 
     vulnerability to an ABM attack is reduced to an acceptable 
     level.
       [Computers] enable the designer to ``test'' ideas before 
     actually committing to hardware fabrication . . . computing 
     capabilities are absolutely critical to progress in new 
     designs.

  OK, so those were the uses of high-powered computers a decade ago. 
Obviously, computer technology has grown rapidly--even exponentially--
since that time. This growth has led to much higher computing speeds, 
more manufacturers, more applications, improved software, and more 
countries seeking such machines. The growth has been so rapid that many 
both in and out of Government have come to believe--or appear to have 
convinced themselves--that this technology is completely 
uncontrollable.
  The rapid advancement of this technology has been accompanied by an 
equally rapid decontrol of some of the very devices we used to make 
some of the most powerful weapons the world has ever known. The 
Commerce Department's Bureau of Export Administration, for example, 
reports in its most recent Annual Report to Congress that--``Due to the 
1994 and 1995 liberalization for computers, this commodity group has 
been replaced by shotguns as being the most significant commodity group 
for which export license applications were received in fiscal year 
1996.'' So it now appears that we are giving closer regulatory 
attention to shotguns than to a key technology that our top weapons 
labs have characterized as essential to performing a variety of 
nuclear-weapons applications.
  But the supporters of this decontrol effort are not daunted by this 
news. They have consistently argued that if some other country is 
exporting high-powered computers without rigorous controls--or without 
any controls at all--then by golly, so should we, or else we would face 
the horrible accusation of ``shooting ourselves in the foot'' by 
denying U.S. manufactures market opportunities that are available to 
their foreign competitors. If there is evidence of foreign 
availability, in short, if there is at least one other country out 
there--whether it be North Korea, or Iran, or China, or any other 
nation --if just one of these countries decides to cash in on America's 
restraint, then we should have the same profit-making opportunities.
  Well, there are a lot of problems with this point of view, some 
legal, and some political and moral. Let's have a closer look at these 
problems.


            The Legal and Political Foundations of Licensing

  Under our Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land. One 
of our treaties, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 [NPT], 
explicitly requires America not in any way to assist any non-nuclear 
weapon state to acquire the bomb. That treaty does not contain any 
proviso indicating that assistance may be provided if some other 
country is providing such assistance. It has no loophole allowing such 
assistance provided though a third party. It contains no codicils 
exempting the computer industry or any other industrial sector from the 
duty not in any way to assist the proliferation of nuclear explosive 
devices. The taboo on assistance is clear and categorical.
  As well it should be. Indeed, America is quite fortunate that the 
term ``not in any way'' does not mean ``except in some ways.'' After 
all, there are 5 nuclear-weapon states today in the NPT and over 175 
non-nuclear-weapon states in the world that have ratified or acceded to 
that treaty. If today we decide that it is fully consistent with this 
treaty obligation for the United States to decontrol completely 
technology that our top weapons designers at our nuclear weapon labs 
have publicly identified as essential to performing a variety of 
nuclear weapons-related activities, then how can we even pretend to be 
complying with this treaty? Is this the kind of approach we wish for 
other members of the treaty to adopt, to interpret that treaty as only 
requiring the regulation of state-of-the-art technology or goods that 
are only exclusively available at home? Is this what is ahead for 
American leadership in the global nonproliferation regime?
  If this is the reasoning that is to guide America's technology 
transfer control policies into the 21st century, then I truly worry not 
just for the future of the NPT but for the future security of our 
country. To those who argue that we should only control state-of-the-
art or sole-national-source technology, I ask: Why limit this logic 
only to the controls over computers? Why not, after all, also decontrol 
all of the other technologies that go into making bombs, except those 
items that are the most modern or exclusively sold in the U.S.?
  The answer of course, is self apparent. Such a step would amount the 
crudest possible form of technological indexing, where U.S. controls 
would simply be ratcheted down with every new technological 
advancement. Such an approach would wreak havoc on any responsible 
nonproliferation policy.

  The hydrogen bombs that America fielded in the 1950's and 1960's are 
no less dangerous in the hands of our adversaries just because they 
were made with technology that is now a half-century old. To advocate 
the decontrol of a technology strictly on the bases of so-called 
foreign availability, or the age, or level of sophistication of the 
item, without regard to either the actual end use or identity of the 
end user, is to turn a blind eye to proliferation. It is a sure-fire 
method to bring, as fast as possible, anachronistic weapons of mass 
destruction back into fashion. Fortunately, the NPT does not only aim 
at preventing the proliferation of state-of-the-art bombs--and we and 
our friends and allies around the world are much better off as a 
result.
  Nor does our domestic legislation take such an approach. I am proud, 
for example, to have been the principal author of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Act of 1978 [NNPA], which requires the President to 
control ``all export items * * * which could be, if used for purposes 
other than those for which the export is intended, of significance for 
nuclear explosive purposes'' (section 309(c)). Now I suppose it might 
have been possible to have written this law only to control:

       The smallest possible number of choke-point export items . 
     . . which are known beyond even the faintest shadow of a 
     doubt to be exclusively intended for a weapons-related use in 
     a publicly-listed bomb plant in a rogue regime that is known 
     to be pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

  But fortunately that is not how the law was written and our Nation is 
quite a bit safer with the original text. No indeed, the law was quite 
explicit in requiring the control over ``all'' export items--and all 
means all--which ``could be''--not just are--``of significance for'' 
nuclear explosive purposes--not just

[[Page S7100]]

absolutely critical to performing such functions.
  We also have several sanctions laws that punish foreign countries and 
firms that assist other countries to acquire nuclear weapons. The so-
called ``Glenn/Symington amendments'' in sections 101 and 102 of the 
Arms Export Control Act, for example, require sanctions against any 
party involved in the transfer of unsafeguarded uranium enrichment 
technology or nuclear reprocessing technology. These are the types of 
technology that produced the nuclear materials used in the Nagasaki and 
Hiroshima bombings. I guess you can call that old technology. I guess 
you could say there is ``foreign availability'' of that technology 
since many other nations can perform these fuel cycle operations. I 
guess that today's methods of enriching uranium or separating plutonium 
are more sophisticated than they were 20 years ago. But does any of 
this mean that we should rewrite all of our nuclear sanctions laws to 
correspond to this dubious new doctrine of controlling only state-of-
the-art goods? Absolutely not, the question answers itself.
  When China transferred ring magnets to Pakistan's unsafeguarded 
uranium enrichment plant, I did not wonder, ``now gee, were these items 
state-of-the-art quality or just 1970's-vintage?'' I was not angry that 
the items did not come from San Francisco, Chicago, New York, or even 
Cleveland. I did not care how sophisticated, or how old, or how cheap, 
or how ``available'' such items were. I did care, however, that China 
was assisting Pakistan to produce nuclear materials for its secret bomb 
project.
  Nonproliferation is about not assisting countries to get the bomb--
not just a duty to control the most modern gadgets available. When the 
special U.N. inspectors found tons of Western dual-use goods in Saddam 
Hussein's weapons bunkers, did any of my colleagues recall an avalanche 
of mail from their constituents expressing outrage that more U.S. goods 
were not found in Saddam's arsenal? Were there pickets in front of the 
Capitol haranguing the Congress further to relax export controls so 
that we can lower our Nation to that grimy ``level playing field'' 
quite evidently enjoyed by some of our European friends? None that I 
could find.
  None indeed. Here is what happened instead. The public was outraged, 
and outraged all the more amid revelations shortly after the gulf war 
in 1991 that United States dual-use goods did, indeed, turn up in Iraq. 
This outrage, with a little help from the news media, helped to 
stimulated some constructive reforms in America's nonproliferation 
policy. In 1992, America succeeded in getting 27 nations of the Nuclear 
Suppliers Group to commit themselves not to export dual-use goods to 
unsafeguarded nuclear facilities and to require full-scope 
international safeguards for all exports of nuclear reactors and other 
nuclear energy-related technology. Before these sensitive dual-use 
goods can be exported, under this multilateral understanding, member 
governments must review specific license applications and review the 
specific nonproliferation credentials of the importing parties.
  In this instance, America did not stoop to adopt the laissez faire 
nuclear trading practices of other countries; instead, we raised the 
level of the international playing field to our level by showing that 
our Nation is a leader not a follower when it comes to 
nonproliferation.

  Another positive reform in U.S. nonproliferation controls was 
implemented just a few months after Iraq invaded Kuwait. President Bush 
unveiled the ``Enhanced Proliferation Control Initiative'' [EPCI], 
which authorized the U.S. Government to prohibit the export of any 
item--repeat, any item--that could contribute to the proliferation of 
missile technology or chemical and biological weapons. A similar 
control had existed for years covering dual-use nuclear technology 
where the exporter ``knows or has reason to know'' that the item would 
be used in a weapons-related application.
  The EPCI or so-called knows rule was intended, however, to 
complement--not to replace--the Nation's export licensing system. Let 
me cite a recent case to illustrate this point.
  On February 19, 1997, for example, the Washington Post reported that 
a California computer firm, Silicon Graphics, Inc., had illegally sold 
four supercomputers to a Russian nuclear weapons facility. The article 
quoted the chief executive officer of this firm as offering the 
following explanation for the export: ``The Department of Commerce 
doesn't provide a list of facilities around the world that we shouldn't 
ship to. So we tend to rely on the end-user statement on how they will 
be used.'' In short, the company interpreted the knows rule as applying 
only to the importer's stated end-use for the specific export. The 
company, and it is probably not alone in this respect, evidently did 
not even consider the possibility that its importer would consider 
offering a bogus end use.
  Now there are several reasons why the U.S. Government cannot go 
around publishing the names and locations of all the world's secret 
bomb facilities and their suppliers. Here are three of them--First, the 
names change rapidly in the black business of nuclear proliferation and 
a printed list would no doubt be obsolete as soon as its ink was dry; 
second, the public identification of such facilities and suppliers 
could well jeopardize U.S. intelligence collection capabilities; and 
third, such a listing could be quite useful to a proliferant country or 
group, effectively amounting to free market research for the 
proliferators.
  So there are some significant limitations in the extent to which the 
Government can delegate export control responsibilities to the private 
sector. Companies simply do not have the capabilities of U.S. 
intelligence agencies. That is the reason why licensing is such a good 
idea: It is the best known technique for making efficient and effective 
use of the resources of our Government--for which the U.S. taxpayer has 
paid so dearly over the years--to assess proliferation risks in 
specific exports.
  Thus even if some of the goods we control are being sold by foreign 
competitors, and even if some goods are not state-of-the-art, it still 
makes considerable sense for the U.S. Government to require licenses 
for items that could assist countries to make bombs. Why? For two key 
reasons.
  First, licensing is the Government's window on the world market for 
U.S. products; export decontrol or devolution of export controls to the 
private sector slams that window shut. In other words, licensing 
creates a paper trail, generates data, and gives our Government's 
nonproliferation analysts something concrete to work with. This 
information is valuable in assessing --and subsequently reducing--
proliferation risks. Thus, even if license applications are rarely 
denied as is currently the case, it still makes sense to require 
licenses for goods that, as our treaties and domestic laws specify, 
could assist other countries to make weapons of mass destruction.
  Second, our leadership role in international nonproliferation regimes 
requires not just words but deeds. If we want other nations to 
strengthen their controls, we should be prepared to do so ourselves. 
Again, our job must be to use our leadership to raise international 
standards up to our own level playing field, rather than lower our own 
to some homogenized least-common-denominator standard set by the 
world's most irresponsible suppliers.


                       Some Additional Loose Ends

  Before concluding today, I would like to touch upon a few other 
charges that have been leveled against the very idea of requiring 
export licenses for any but state-of-the-art computers. I will address 
two of such charges.
  First, our national economy will allegedly be hurt by the 
establishment of licensing requirements for computers rated at over 
2,000 MTOPS going to the designated nations.
  We should keep in mind here that the overwhelming majority of 
America's exports leave the country without requiring export licenses 
at all. In 1995, for example, America exported $969 billion in goods 
and services, while the Government denied export licenses for goods 
valued at only $30 million. To give my colleagues an idea of the scale 
we are talking about here, the ratio between the value of those goods 
that were denied licenses and the total value of U.S. trade in that 
year is analogous to the difference between the length of a pencil 
eraser and the height of the Washington Monument. That is about the 
same ratio as the size of garden pea on the quarter-inch line of a

[[Page S7101]]

100-yard football field, or the amount of calories in a single carrot 
relative to a year's worth of balanced meals.

  Here is another way to put this problem in its proper context: $99.20 
out of every $100 in U.S. exports did not require an export license. 
And of the few that did require such a license, only one license in a 
hundred was denied. That was in 1995. Since then, computer controls 
have been substantially liberalized (along with chemical exports going 
to parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention), while overall U.S. 
exports were just over $1 trillion in 1996. Relative to total U.S. 
trade, therefore, fewer and fewer goods are requiring licenses.
  Now some might argue that while these figures may be true, certain 
industries face a greater likelihood of having to face license 
requirements than other industries. Yes that is undoubtedly true: If 
you produce something that is likely to assist another country to get 
the bomb, you can expect Uncle Sam to get a bit nosy and, if the system 
is working right, to be an outright nuisance. No company, however, can 
claim any right under U.S. law to help another country to make nuclear 
weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction. We have a free 
economy--but our individual freedom to produce and market goods is not 
unlimited, especially when it comes to goods that can jeopardize our 
national security.
  As John Stuart Mill once wrote in his book, ``On Liberty,'' over a 
100 years ago: ``Trade is a social act. Whoever undertakes to sell any 
description of goods to the public, does what affects the interest of 
other persons, and of society in general; and thus his conduct, in 
principle, comes within the jurisdiction of society.'' The writer of 
those words was one of England's foremost liberal economists. Even Adam 
Smith himself admitted that the Government had a legitimate 
responsibility to regulate certain forms of trade.
  And I for one cannot imagine a more legitimate basis for regulating 
trade than to ensure that America is not assisting other countries to 
make the bomb. Fortunately, I am not alone in this conviction. As 
President Clinton stated on October 18, 1994: ``There is nothing more 
important to our security and to the world's stability than preventing 
the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.'' The key 
legislative task--a responsibility now before us today--is to ensure 
that this principle is reflected in the rules and procedures America 
uses to control its own exports. License-free exports of technologies 
that our weapons labs have repeatedly identified as useful in making 
bombs and reentry vehicles hardly seems to me an appropriate way to 
implement this Presidential statement of our top national priority.
  Our national economy will not be hurt, and America's international 
economic competitiveness will not be crippled, by the establishment of 
a licensing requirement on computers rated at 2,000 MTOPS and above 
going to certain destinations--though our national economy could well 
be endangered, and considerable business opportunities lost, if a 
nuclear war should someday break out involving foreign weapons that 
designed with computers that were Made in USA.
  Most computers, moreover, will still leave the country without export 
licenses. We are talking about today machines that have special 
capabilities. On June 12 of this year, a senior strategic trade advisor 
at the Department of Defense, Peter Leitner, testified before a hearing 
of the Joint Economic Committee on ``Economic Espionage, Technology 
Transfers and National Security.'' Dr. Leitner included with his 
testimony a graphic showing some of the functions in our own military 
of computers operating at levels actually less than 2,000 MTOPS. He 
pointed out that NORAD had recently upgraded its computers by buying 
Hewlett-Packard computers rated between 99 and 300 MTOPS. He testified 
that machines have been used below 2,000 MTOPS to perform the following 
functions: space vehicle design (launch and control); high-speed design 
simulations; pre-wind tunnel modeling; reentry vehicle design (ICBMs); 
and high-speed cryptography.
  Perhaps we should require licenses for computers at even lower levels 
than 2,000 MTOPS, as Dr. Leitner's testimony implies. It seems hard to 
justify the authorization of exports--without even requiring a license 
or an end use or end-user check--of technology that is capable of being 
used in designing nuclear weapons or reentry vehicles as being in any 
way consistent with our national security interests. Until some 
international agreement can be reached on an alternative level, 
however, the 2,000 MTOPS level is a good place to begin to strengthen 
controls over these sensitive dual-use items.
  Multilateral control over this technology is of course the best 
course to pursue, but multilateralism has to begin somewhere. The 
United States--with its reputation as the world's leading champion of 
nonproliferation and with its world-class computer industry--has an 
extraordinary opportunity for leadership in encouraging other members 
of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to adopt similar controls. A diplomatic 
effort of this nature would also help to alleviate fears of our 
industry that the duty of complying with these controls would fall only 
on U.S. exporters. Our negotiations with other members of the NSG 
should begin with one basic question: Why should computers be exempt 
from the no-assistance norm that lies at the heart of the global 
nonproliferation regime?

  My colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Grams, has recently suggested that 
perhaps the General Accounting Office might be called upon to examine 
the national security risks of unregulated exports of computers in this 
range and, depending on the scope and content of the request, this 
might be a good idea indeed. But until we see a specific request and a 
finished study, I think the amendment proposed by Messrs. Cochran and 
Durbin is a prudent course to follow for the immediate future.
  It is useful to recall that GAO does indeed have some relevant 
background in dealing with the proliferation implications of such 
computers. At my request back in 1994, the GAO prepared a lengthy 
report on U.S. export licensing procedures for handling nuclear dual-
use items. In testimony before the Committee on Governmental Affairs on 
May 17, 1994, a senior GAO official, Joseph Kelly, noted that recent 
export control reforms in recent years ``. . . will almost certainly 
result in a substantial decline in the number of computer license 
applications and could complicate U.S. efforts to prevent U.S. computer 
exports from supporting nuclear proliferation.'' GAO concluded that 
``many of the computers that will now be free of nuclear proliferation 
licensing requirements are capable of performing nuclear weapons-
related work.'' (GAO/NSIAD-94-119, 4/26/94 and GAO/T-NSIAD-94-163, 5/
17/94.) Mr. President, these do not seem to me to be the types of items 
that should be, in GAO's terms, ``free of nuclear proliferation 
licensing requirements.''
  The second charge leveled against the establishment of a licensing 
requirement is that it would place U.S. exporters at a competitive 
disadvantage, due to the protracted delays in obtaining the necessary 
license approvals. This argument also lacks credibility. The Bureau of 
Export Administration [BXA] in the Department of Commerce is so proud 
of its recent efforts to streamline the export license application 
process that it trumpets this achievement in its most recent annual 
report to Congress. Here is what that report had to say about the 
licensing process:

       . . . BXA implemented significant improvements in the 
     export license system via Presidential Executive Order 12981 
     [which] . . . limit the application review time by other U.S. 
     agencies, provide an orderly procedure to resolve interagency 
     disputes, and establish further accountability through the 
     interagency review process.
       [E.O. 12981] . . . reduces the time permitted to process 
     license applications. No later than 90 calendar days from the 
     time a complete license application is submitted, it will 
     either be finally disposed of or escalated to the President 
     for a decision. Previously, all license applications had to 
     be resolved within 120 days after submission to the 
     Secretary. . . . By providing strict time limits for license 
     review and a ``default to decision'' process, it also ensures 
     rapid decisionmaking and escalation of license applications.
       In FY 1996, the Bureau introduced a PC-based forms 
     processing and image management system which, along with the 
     new multipurpose application form, enhances BXA's ability to 
     make quick and accurate licensing and commodity 
     classification decisions.
       BXA ensures that export license applications are analyzed 
     and acted upon accurately, quickly, and consistently, and 
     that exporters have access to the decisionmaking

[[Page S7102]]

     process, with current status reports available at all times. 
     Rapid processing is available for the majority of 
     applications BXA receives.

  BXA also notes that it is in the process of upgrading and expanding 
its electronic licensing process to provide prompt customer service.
  It is also noteworthy that BXA discusses in the same report its 
assistance to Russia and other new republics of the former Soviet Union 
to upgrade their national systems of export control. Obviously, if 
America is decontrolling goods useful in making nuclear weapons and 
other weapons of mass destruction, and the missile systems to deliver 
them, then we can hardly hope to inspire these other countries to show 
any greater discipline.
  It would be far better for us to be sticking to a strict 
interpretation of the ``not in any way to assist'' obligation that the 
United States and every other nuclear-weapon state in the NPT has vowed 
to implement. We should lead the way in strengthening international 
controls, not in relaxing them under the false flag ``economic 
competitiveness.'' We should remember that these other countries have 
their own conceptions of ``economic competitiveness'' that, if allowed 
to become a global norm, could lead to a total collapse of the 
international nonproliferation regime. We have as much at stake in 
encouraging these countries to place nonproliferation as a high-
national priority as we have in ensuring a similar priority here at 
home.


                               Conclusion

  So I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this constructive 
reform of our export licensing process. We have the people in our 
government who are competent to review these licenses. We have the 
technology and procedures in our Government to ensure the prompt and 
efficient handling of license applications. We have both domestic and 
international legal obligations that requires the control of technology 
that could assist other countries to get the bomb. And we have 
legitimate national security interests to protect. America can be a 
formidable economic competitor in the world without becoming the 
world's most formidable proliferator of nuclear or dual-uses goods. I 
urge my friends and colleagues to vote for this amendment.


                       high-performance computers

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I had the opportunity earlier today to 
meet with a number of computer manufacturers located in my State. They 
expressed grave concerns about the amendment which you have proposed. I 
would like to take this opportunity to engage in a colloquy with the 
Senator from Mississippi in an effort to get more information on this 
important issue into the Record.
  My constituents allege that, by next year, your amendment will have 
the effect of restricting the sale of personal computers--similar to 
those in our Senate offices--to Tier 3 countries. Do you agree with 
this statement?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, based upon statements made by Under 
Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration William Reinsch, it is 
highly unlikely that personal computers capable of more than 2,000 
MTOPS will be available by next year. At a recent hearing Secretary 
Reinsch said, ``high-end Pentium-based personal computers sold today at 
retail outlets perform at about 200 to 250 MTOPS,'' and at another 
hearing, this one before my subcommittee on June 11, he also said that 
``computer power doubles every 18 months, and this has been the axiom 
in the industry for I think about 15 years.'' The math is 
straightforward; if top-end PC's are capable of 250 MTOPS today, 18 
months from now they'll be capable of 1,000 MTOPS; and 54 months from 
now--in 4\1/2\ years--they'll be capable of 2,000 MTOPS. Fifty-four 
months from now is not, contrary to the claims of some computer 
manufacturers, the fourth quarter of next year.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that, since 1995 
when the new export control standards were established, there have been 
over 1,400 computers sold in this range to Tier 3 countries. Of those 
1,400 sales, a small number have allegedly wound up with military end 
users in Russia and China. What evidence do we have concerning these 
alleged computer sales to military end users?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, according to the Department of Commerce, 
from the period January 25, 1997, through March 1997, 1,436 
supercomputers were exported from the United States. Of that number, 
91--or 6.34 percent--went to Tier 3 countries, some of which went with 
an individual validated license. We know, based upon statements by 
Russian and Chinese Government officials, that some of these 
supercomputers are in the Chinese Academy of Sciences, a military 
facility in Chungsha, China, and in Arzamas-16 and Chelyabinsk-70. 
Arzamas-16 and Chelyabinsk-70 are both well-known nuclear weapons 
development facilities in Russia; the suggestion by exporters that 
these high performance computers would be in either of these locations 
and not be doing nuclear-related work appears to be somewhat self-
serving and contrary to common sense. According to Russia's Minister of 
Atomic Energy, these supercomputers are '`10 times faster than any 
previously available in Russia.'' The Chinese Academy of Sciences, 
which has worked on everything from the D-5 ICBM to enriching uranium 
for nuclear weapons, hasn't been shy about its new supercomputing 
capabilities, saying that its American supercomputer provides the 
Academy with ``computational power previously unknown'' available to 
``all the major scientific and technological institutes across China.'' 
American high performance computers are now available to help these 
countries improve their nuclear weapons and improve that which they are 
proliferating.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if your amendment passes, it is my 
understanding that this would be the first time that export control 
parameters would be established in statute. I am concerned that with 
advances in technology, the fixed parameters will quickly become 
outdated. How will we be able to deal with these technological advances 
when fixed parameters are included in legislation? Did you consider 
other alternatives to fixed statutory language, such as an annual 
review of the threshold by a neutral third party or government entity?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the current policy is established in 
regulation, and regulation has the force and effect of law. For 
Congress to participate in the policymaking process it must pass 
legislation. Furthermore, the pace of technological advancement is such 
that, at some point in the future, it is entirely possible that the 
2,000 MTOPS level--which is the administration's current floor--will 
have to be raised. That is why, on July 7 on the Senate floor, I said 
that if, 4 or 5 years from now, industry's optimism proves to be 
correct, I will be pleased to return to the floor and offer legislation 
adjusting the 2,000 MTOPS level.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have been told that computers with 
similar capabilities and computing power are readily available from 
other nations. Given that, the concern is that your amendment would put 
U.S. computer companies at a competitive disadvantage since these 
computers are readily available on the world market. What has your 
subcommittee's research shown regarding the foreign availability of 
computers in this range (2,000-7,000 MTOPS)? What is the market share 
of U.S. manufacturers of computers in this range, and has that market 
share changed since the administration liberalized its policy in 1995?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment will not in any way reduce 
the number of American high-performance computers going to Tier 3 
countries. It does not change the administration's standards for making 
the exports; all that is changed is the question of who makes end-use 
and end-user determinations for Tier 3 countries. In fact, at least 
eight high-performance computers have been exported to Tier 3 countries 
with an individual validated license since this policy started. Only 
entities that shouldn't be receiving these supercomputers in the first 
place won't, because of closer scrutiny by the executive branch, 
receive them under this amendment. So, the suggestion by some 
manufacturers that this amendment would somehow reduce their market 
share is an argument that has no basis in fact.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it has been alleged that the licensing 
requirement contained in your amendment will put U.S. computer 
companies at a commercial disadvantage since it often takes up to 6 
months for the Commerce

[[Page S7103]]

Department to approve an export license. By contrast, the Japanese 
often approve export licenses in 24 hours. In conjunction with your 
efforts on this amendment, have you explored options for improving the 
export license approval process at Commerce?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, Japan has a more restrictive export 
control policy than does the United States. I support making the 
Department of Commerce export licensing process more efficient, though 
a more efficient process cannot come at the expense of national 
security concerns, which must be adequately addressed in the process. I 
would note, as well, that more than 95 percent of export licenses 
considered by Commerce are currently approved in 30 days or less.


                           Amendment No. 669

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor an amendment 
to the Department of Defense authorization bill that would restore 
funding for bioassay testing of atomic veterans. I urge all of my 
colleagues to join in support of this important measure.
  In my role as the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, I have heard firsthand of the difficulties experienced by 
veterans exposed to ionizing radiation during their military service 
when they have tried to get their radiation-related diseases service 
connected by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The main reason for 
this difficulty is the sometimes impossible task of accurately 
reconstructing radiation dosage.
  The law currently distinguishes between two groups of veterans: those 
who warrant presumptive service connection for their radiation-related 
conditions because of their participation in an atmospheric nuclear 
test, the occupation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or their internment as a 
prisoner of war in Japan during World War II, which resulted in 
possible exposure to ionizing radiation--and those who may have been 
exposed to ionizing radiation in service under other circumstances, 
such as service on a nuclear submarine. Those veterans who do not 
receive presumptive service connection and suffer from radiogenic 
diseases must prove their exposure to radiation by having the VA and 
DOD attempt to reconstruct their radiation dose through military 
records. VA looks to the DOD to perform these dose reconstructions.
  This amendment is so important because the White House Advisory 
Committee on Human Radiation Activities has acknowledged that there are 
inadequate records to determine the precise amount of radiation to 
which a veteran was exposed, and what the long-term risks associated 
with that exposure are. As of September 1996, VA had only granted 
service connection to 1,977 out of 18,896 veterans who had filed claims 
based on participation in all radiation-risk activities. VA estimates 
that it has granted fewer than 50 claims of veterans who did not 
receive presumptive service connection.
  This amendment would authorize $300,000 for the completion of the 
third and final phase of Brookhaven National Laboratory's testing of 
radiation-exposed veterans. Brookhaven's fission tracking analysis 
could provide a more accurate measure of an individual's internal 
radiation dosages. I have contacted VA in support of the Brookhaven 
project in the past. VA's response indicated that it is the Department 
of Defense, not the VA, who has the responsibilty to provide dose 
estimates for veterans exposed to ionizing radiation. That is why we 
must restore funding to the Brookhaven project in the DOD authorization 
bill.
  As ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have seen 
the struggles of America's atomic veterans and their survivors. I have 
heard testimony of the veterans who bravely served in our military, and 
who are now sick and dying and cannot get the compensation they have 
earned by their service to our country. These veterans were placed in 
harm's way, sworn to secrecy, and abandoned by their government for 
many years. It is critical that we search for a better way to assess 
their exposure to radiation. It is vital that we restore funding to a 
program that can renew hope to atomic veterans and their families.
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a period of 
morning business not to exceed 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might ask my distinguished colleague, 
we have a few cleared amendments on the bill. Would it be possible to 
clear up these few amendments and then return to his request?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I have no objection to doing that.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, we are ready to proceed, if the distinguished ranking 
member is prepared.


                     Amendment No. 607, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl's 
amendment be modified as indicated in the modification, which I now 
send to the desk, numbered 607.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me ask a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand that this modification, which 
has been offered by the sponsor of the amendment, would be in order, 
that he would have the right to modify his own amendment. Is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona would have the right 
to modify his amendment only if cloture is not invoked tomorrow.
  Mr. LEVIN. As of right now, if the Senator from Arizona were here, he 
would have the right to modify his amendment. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If cloture were invoked tomorrow, the 
particular modification would be invalid without unanimous consent.
  Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry. Perhaps I did not state it clearly. 
If the Senator from Arizona were here now and offered to modify his own 
pending amendment, which is what I understand is being offered----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would be invalidated by the adoption of 
cloture tomorrow in the absence of unanimous consent.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am seeking unanimous consent and 
appearing on behalf of the Senator and offering it on his behalf. And 
the yeas and nays, to my understanding, have not been ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If unanimous consent were granted to the 
modification, of course.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. And I have sought unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry. I am sorry to press this. But my 
parliamentary inquiry is, that right to modify his own amendment would 
exist if the Senator were here himself at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Only with unanimous consent, should cloture be 
invoked tomorrow.
  Mr. LEVIN. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, I thank the indulgence of the Chair 
while the Senator from Michigan and I have resolved such differences as 
we may have had and once again restate, I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, amendment No. 607 be 
amended, and I send to the desk the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  The amendment (No. 607), as modified, 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,

[[Page S7104]]

     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; and
       (4) 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.


                           Amendment No. 644

(Purpose: To make retroactive the entitlement of certain Medal of Honor 
  recipients to the special pension provided for persons entered and 
 recorded on the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard Medal of Honor 
                                 Roll)

  Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kempthorne, I 
offer an amendment which would make retroactive the entitlement of 
certain Medal of Honor recipients for special pensions provided to 
persons entered and recorded in the Medal of Honor rolls.
  Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared, Mr. President.
  Mr. WARNER. I therefore urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Kempthorne, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 644:
       At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 535. RETROACTIVITY OF MEDAL OF HONOR SPECIAL PENSION.

       (a) Entitlement.--In the case of Vernon J. Baker, Edward A. 
     Carter, Junior, and Charles L. Thomas, who were awarded the 
     Medal of Honor pursuant to section 561 of Public Law 104-201 
     (110 Stat. 2529) and whose names have been entered and 
     recorded on the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard Medal 
     of Honor Roll, the entitlement of those persons to the 
     special pension provided under section 1562 of title 38, 
     United States Code (and antecedent provisions of law), shall 
     be effective as follows:
       (1) In the case of Vernon J. Baker, for months that begin 
     after April 1945.
       (2) In the case of Edward A. Carter, Junior, for months 
     that begin after March 1945.
       (3) In the case of Charles L. Thomas, for months that begin 
     after December 1944.
       (b) Amount.--The amount of the special pension payable 
     under subsection (a) for a month beginning before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act shall be the amount of the special 
     pension provided by law for that month for persons entered 
     and recorded on the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard 
     Medal of Honor Roll (or an antecedent Medal of Honor Roll 
     required by law).
       (c) Payment to Next of Kin.--In the case of a person 
     referred to in subsection (a) who died before receiving full 
     payment of the pension pursuant to this section, the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall pay the total amount of 
     the accrued pension, upon receipt of application for payment 
     within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     to the deceased person's spouse or, if there is no surviving 
     spouse, then to the deceased person's children, per stripes, 
     in equal shares.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 644) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. 596

 (Purpose: To authorize $6,719,000 for the construction of a combined 
      support maintenance shop, Camp Johnson, Colchester, Vermont)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Leahy and Jeffords, I 
offer an amendment which would authorize $6.7 million for the 
construction of a combined support maintenance shop for the Vermont 
Army National Guard in Colchester, VT.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared on the other side.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Leahy, for 
     himself and Mr. Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 596:
       On page 382, line 15, strike out ``$155,416,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$162,135,000''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be offering, with my 
colleague Senator Patrick Leahy, an amendment to the Department of 
Defense authorization bill to provide for the construction of a 
combined support and maintenance shop [CSMS] at Camp Johnson, VT.
  This project is to be constructed in Colchester, VT and used by the 
Vermont National Guard to meet its support level maintenance mission. 
The quantity, size and type of equipment now assigned to the Vermont 
Army National Guard have required them to propose the construction of 
this CSMS. The new facility will have administrative offices and allied 
shops as well as special bays for maintenance work on all types of 
vehicles. The design money for this project was approved by the 
Congress last year.
  The Vermont Army National Guard has stretched the limits of the 
current facility which was built over 40 years ago, in 1956. The 
current facility has very significant shortfalls in all office and shop 
areas. The existing work bays cannot accommodate the M-1 tank. In 
addition, essential maintenance and maintenance training is 
consistently delayed due to the lack of space. Without the construction 
of a new facility readiness of the Vermont Army National Guard will be 
adversely affected.
  In order to assure that the Vermont Army National Guard is ready at 
all times to meet the needs of our nation's defense, Senator Leahy and 
I have worked together on this project. I am pleased that the Vermont 
Army National Guard can move forward on this CSMS and hope that my 
colleagues will support the efforts that Senator Leahy and I have taken 
to insure that the Vermont Army National Guard can meet the military 
needs of our country in the next century.
  I commend Chairman Thurmond for his foresight to realize that his new 
facility is essential in order for the Vermont Army National Guard to 
meet the anticipated demands on them in the coming years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 596) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 781

   (Purpose: To authorize $3,210,000 for the construction of an Army 
          National Guard readiness center at Macon, Missouri)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, again, I am standing in for the 
distinguished

[[Page S7105]]

chairman of the Armed Services Committee this evening in offering these 
amendments.
  On behalf of Senator Bond, I offer an amendment which would authorize 
$3.2 million for the construction of a readiness center for the 
Missouri Army National Guard in Macon, MO.
  This amendment, it is my understanding, has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Bond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 781:
       On page 382, line 15, strike out ``$155,416,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$158,626,000''.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the Defense 
authorization bill to include authorization for funding construction of 
a National Guard readiness center. Military construction projects such 
as this will ensure that as we downsize our military, the facilities 
which house and service our military will not be left to deteriorate. 
Armories throughout the Nation need to be adequately maintained and 
upgraded to provide decent training facilities for the men and women 
assigned to units based at these armories and to protect the vital 
equipment stored there. In Macon, MO, there is a company of soldiers 
located in a facility owned by the city, which was constructed in the 
1890's and is totally inadequate. In order to provide these soldiers 
with a facility capable of maintaining their proficiency in mission 
essential task training, I have requested funds adequate to complete 
such a facility. I also point out that it will be less expensive to 
create a new facility than to attempt to refurbish this 19th century 
structure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 781) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. 610

(Purpose: To authorize $5,232,000 for the addition and alteration of an 
     administrative facility at Bellows Air Force Station, Hawaii)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Inouye, I offer an 
amendment which would authorize $5.2 million for the alteration of an 
administrative facility at Bellows Air Force Station, HI.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other side.
  Mr. WARNER. The amendment has been accepted on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Inouye, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 610:
       On page 366, in the table following line 5, insert after 
     the item relating to Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, the 
     following new item:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii.............................  Bellows Air Force        $5,232,000
                                      Station.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 366, in the table following line 5, strike out 
     ``$540,920,000'' in the amount column in the item relating to 
     the total and insert in lieu thereof ``$546,152,000''.
       On page 369, line 9, strike out ``$1,793,949,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,799,181,000''.
       On page 369, line 13, strike out ``$540,920,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$546,152,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 610) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 782

(Purpose: To make certain adjustments in the authorizations relating to 
                    military construction projects)

  Mr. WARNER. On behalf of Senators Thurmond and Levin, I offer an 
amendment which would make funding adjustments to provide the necessary 
offset to fund certain military construction projects.
  I undoubtedly think it has been accepted on the other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. It has been, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Thurmond, 
     for himself and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     782:
       On page 356, line 8, strike out ``$1,957,129,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,951,478,000''.
       On page 357, line 4, strike out ``$1,148,937,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,143,286,000''.
       On page 360, in the table following line 7, strike out the 
     item relating to Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico.
       On page 360, in the table following line 7, strike out 
     ``$75,620,000'' in the amount column in the item relating to 
     the total and insert in lieu thereof ``$65,920,000''.
       On page 362, line 14, strike out ``$1,916,887,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,907,387,000''.
       On page 362, line 20, strike out ``$75,620,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$65,920,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 782) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. 783

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into an 
agreement for the use of a medical resource facility in Alamagordo, New 
                                Mexico)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I offer an 
amendment that would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to enter 
into an agreement to grant $7 million to a private nonprofit hospital 
in Alamagordo, NM, to construct and equip a new joint-use hospital.
  I ask also unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be added as an 
original cosponsor.
  I believe it has been cleared on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Bingaman, 
     for himself and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 
     783:
       On page 226, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 708. AUTHORITY FOR AGREEMENT FOR USE OF MEDICAL RESOURCE 
                   FACILITY, ALAMAGORDO, NEW MEXICO.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Air Force may enter 
     into an agreement with Gerald Champion Hospital, Alamagordo, 
     New Mexico (in this section referred to as the ``Hospital''), 
     providing for the Secretary to furnish health care services 
     to eligible individuals in a medical resource facility in 
     Alamagordo, New Mexico, that is constructed, in part, using 
     funds provided by the Secretary under the agreement.
       (b) Content of Agreement.--Any agreement entered into under 
     subsection (a) shall, at a minimum, specify the following:
       (1) The relationship between the Hospital and the Secretary 
     in the provision of health care services to eligible 
     individuals in the facility, including--
       (A) whether or not the Secretary and the Hospital is to use 
     and administer the facility jointly or independently; and
       (B) under what circumstances the Hospital is to act as a 
     provider of health care services under the TRICARE managed 
     care program.
       (2) Matters relating to the administration of the 
     agreement, including--
       (A) the duration of the agreement;
       (B) the rights and obligations of the Secretary and the 
     Hospital under the agreement, including any contracting or 
     grievance procedures applicable under the agreement;
       (C) the types of care to be provided to eligible 
     individuals under the agreement, including the cost to the 
     Department of the Air Force of providing the care to eligible 
     individuals during the term of the agreement;
       (D) the access of Air Force medical personnel to the 
     facility under the agreement;
       (E) the rights and responsibilities of the Secretary and 
     the Hospital upon termination of the agreement; and
       (F) any other matters jointly identified by the Secretary 
     and the Hospital.
       (3) The nature of the arrangement between the Secretary and 
     the Hospital with respect to the ownership of the facility 
     and any property under the agreement, including--
       (A) the nature of that arrangement while the agreement is 
     in force;
       (B) the nature of that arrangement upon termination of the 
     agreement; and
       (C) any requirement for reimbursement of the Secretary by 
     the Hospital as a result of the arrangement upon termination 
     of the agreement.
       (4) The amount of the funds available under subsection (c) 
     that the Secretary is to contribute for the construction and 
     equiping of the facility.
       (5) Any conditions or restrictions relating to the 
     construction, equipping, or use of the facility.
       (c) Availability of Funds for Construction and Equipping of 
     Facility.--Of the

[[Page S7106]]

     amount authorized to be appropriated by section 301(21), not 
     more than $7,000,000 may be available for the contribution of 
     the Secretary referred to in subsection (b)(4) to the 
     construction and equipping of the facility described in 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Notice and Wait.--The Secretary may not enter into the 
     agreement authorized by subsection (a) until 90 days after 
     the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees 
     a report describing the agreement. The report shall set forth 
     the memorandum of agreement under subsection (b), the results 
     of a cost-benefit analysis conducted by the Secretary with 
     respect to the agreement, and such other information with 
     respect to the agreement as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (e) Eligible Individual Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``eligible individual'' means any individual eligible for 
     medical and dental care under chapter 55 of title 10, United 
     States Code, including any individual entitled to such care 
     under section 1074(a) of that title.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 783) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 784

  (Purpose: To require a report on the policies and practices of the 
  Department of Defense relating to the protection of members of the 
               Armed Forces abroad from terrorist attack)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Specter, I offer an 
amendment which would require the Secretary of Defense to provide the 
Congressional defense committees with a report that would contain an 
assessment of the policies and procedures for determining force 
protection requirements within the Department of Defense and procedures 
to determine accountability within the Department of Defense when there 
is a loss of life due to a terrorist attack.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Specter, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 784:
       On page 306, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 1041. REPORT ON POLICIES AND PRACTICES RELATING TO THE 
                   PROTECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 
                   ABROAD AND TERRORIST ATTACK.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On June 25, 1996, a bomb detonated not more than 80 
     feet from the Air Force housing complex known as Khobar 
     Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 members of the 
     Air Force and injuring hundreds more.
       (2) On June 13, 1996, a report by the Bureau of 
     Intelligence and Research of the Department of State 
     highlighted security concerns in the region in which Dhahran 
     is located.
       (3) On June 17, 1996, the Department of Defense received an 
     intelligence report detailing a high level of risk to the 
     complex.
       (4) In January 1996, the Office of Special Investigations 
     of the Air Force issued a vulnerability assessment for the 
     complex, which assessment highlighted the vulnerability of 
     perimeter security at the complex given the proximity of the 
     complex to a boundary fence and the lack of the protective 
     coating Mylar on its windows.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to the congressional defense committees a report containing 
     the following:
       (a) An assessment of the current policies and practices of 
     the Department of Defense with respect to the protection of 
     members of the Armed Forces abroad against terrorist attack, 
     including any modifications to such policies or practices 
     that are proposed or implemented as a result of the 
     assessment.
       (2) An assessment of the procedures of the Department of 
     Defense intended to determine accountability, if any, in the 
     command structure in instances in which a terrorist attack 
     results in the loss of life at an installation or facility of 
     the Armed Forces abroad.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 784) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. 785

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding the transfer of 
 the ground communication-electronic workload from McClellan Air Force 
Base, California, to Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania, in accordance 
 with the schedule provided for the realignment of the performance of 
such workload; and to prohibit privatization of the performance of that 
                           workload in place)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senators Santorum and 
Specter, I offer an amendment which would express the sense of the 
Senate that the ground communication-electronic depot maintenance 
workload currently performed at McClellan Air Logistics Center should 
be transferred to the Army Depot at Tobyhanna, PA, in adherence to the 
schedule prescribed for that transfer by the Defense Depot Maintenance 
Council on March 13, 1997.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Santorum, 
     for himself and Mr. Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 
     785:
       At the end of subtitle B of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 319. REALIGNMENT OF PERFORMANCE OF GROUND COMMUNICATION-
                   ELECTRONIC WORKLOAD.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the transfer of the ground communication-electronic workload 
     to Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania, in the realignment of 
     the performance of such function should be carried out in 
     adherence to the schedule prescribed for that transfer by the 
     Defense Depot Maintenance Council on March 13, 1997, as 
     follows:
       (1) Transfer of 20 percent of the workload in fiscal year 
     1998.
       (2) Transfer of 40 percent of the workload in fiscal year 
     1999.
       (3) Transfer of 40 percent of the workload in fiscal year 
     2000.
       (b) Prohibition.--No provision of this Act that authorizes 
     or provides for contracting for the performance of a depot-
     level maintenance and repair workload by a private sector 
     source at a location where the workload was performed before 
     fiscal year 1998 shall apply to the workload referred to in 
     subsection (a).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 785) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. 786

        (Purpose: To make technical amendments and corrections)

  Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thurmond, I 
offer an amendment which makes technical amendments and corrections to 
the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Thurmond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 786:
       On page 26, after line 24, add the following:
       (b) Exceptions.--The prohibition in subsection (a) does not 
     apply to the following:
       (1) Any purchase, lease, upgrade, or modification initiated 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Any installation of state-of-the-art technology for a 
     drydock that does not also increase the capacity of the 
     drydock.
       On page 26, line 21, insert ``(a) Prohibition.--'' before 
     ``None''.
       On page 37, line 9, strike out ``6,006'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``6,206''.
       On page 278, line 12, strike out ``under section 301(20) 
     for fiscal year 1998''.
       On page 365, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

     SEC. 2206. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION FOR MILITARY 
                   CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AT ROOSEVELT ROADS NAVAL 
                   STATION, PUERTO RICO.

       (a) Increase.--The table in section 2201(b) of the Military 
     Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division 
     B of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2767) is amended in the 
     amount column of the item relating to Naval Station, 
     Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, by striking out ``$23,600,000'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``$24,100,000''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2204(b)(4) of such Act 
     (110 Stat. 2770) is amended by striking out ``14,100,000'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``$14,600,000''.
       On page 400, after line 25, insert the following:
       (d) Authority Contingent on Appropriations Acts.--The 
     Secretary may exercise the authority under subsection (a) 
     only to the extent and in the amounts provided in advance in 
     appropriations Acts.
       On page 409, line 23, insert ``, to the extent provided in 
     appropriations Acts,'' after ``shall''.
       On page 417, line 23, strike out ``$1,265,481,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,266,021,000''.
       On page 418, line 5, strike out ``84,367,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$84,907,000''.
       On page 419, line 17, strike out ``$2,173,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$2,713,000''.
       On page 481, line 16, insert ``of the Supervisory Board of 
     the'' before ``Commission''.


[[Page S7107]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 786) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. 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. 706

    (Purpose: To enhance fish and wildlife conservation and natural 
           resources management programs under the Sikes Act)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Chafee and Baucus, I 
offer an amendment that would authorize the act to promote effective 
planning, development, maintenance and coordination of wildlife, fish 
and game conservation and rehabilitation on military installations.
  Mr. President, I also ask that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] 
be included as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Chafee, for 
     himself, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 706.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Sikes Act was enacted by Congress in 
1960 to provide enhanced stewardship of fish and wildlife and other 
natural resources on military installations. It was named for 
Congressman Bob Sikes of Florida. The act seeks to capitalize on the 
enormous potential for natural resource conservation on military lands. 
The Department of Defense controls nearly 25 million acres of land and 
water at approximately 900 military installations in the United States, 
and the National Guard oversees an additional 1 million acres on 80 
sites. These lands serve as home to approximately 100 endangered or 
threatened species and countless other fish and wildlife resources.
  The Sikes Act was last amended in 1986, and authorization expired in 
1993. Since then, several attempts to reauthorize the act have been 
made, and although Congress has been close several times, all have 
failed. We now have a golden opportunity to amend and reauthorize the 
Sikes Act, in S. 936, the bill to authorize the Department of Defense.
  Two weeks ago, an agreement was reached among the Department of 
Defense, the Department of the Interior, the International Association 
of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the two House committees with 
jurisdiction over the Sikes Act. The White House approved the agreement 
the following day. The amendment that I am introducing, together with 
Senator Baucus and Senator Kempthorne, is virtually identical to the 
House version, which passed in the House as part of H.R. 1119, the 
Department of Defense authorization bill. This amendment to the Sikes 
Act will greatly improve the current law.
  In its current form, the Sikes Act authorizes the Secretary of 
Defense to enter into cooperative plans with the Secretary of the 
Interior and the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency for the 
conservation of fish and wildlife on military lands. Over the 37 years 
of the Sikes Act, cooperation under the act has improved fish and 
wildlife management on military bases.
  For example, wetlands associated with the North American Waterfowl 
Management Plan that are on military bases have been restored under a 
recent initiative by the Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of 
Defense. Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, and Elgin Air 
Force base in Florida, have undertaken efforts to protect the 
redcockaded woodpecker. Fisheries assessments are taking place on both 
coasts, including Brunswick Naval air station in Maine and a submarine 
base in Washington.
  While these examples illustrate how cooperation can improve natural 
resource management, more can and should be done. Only 250 agreements 
exist, and many of these are outdated. In addition, many agreements 
provide only for minimal cooperation among parties, rather than 
affirmative management of the resources. Another 200 agreements are 
currently being developed.
  The amendment that Senator Baucus, Senator Kempthorne, and I are 
introducing would infuse new vigor into implementation of the Sikes 
Act. Specifically, it would require the Secretary of each military 
department to develop a natural resource management plan for each of 
its military installations, unless there is an absence of significant 
natural resources on the base. The plan would be prepared by the 
Secretary in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
appropriate State fish and wildlife agency. The plan must be consistent 
with the use of military lands to ensure the preparedness of the 
military, and cannot result in any net loss in the capability of the 
military installation to support the military mission of the 
installation. With those caveats, the plan must also provide for the 
management and conservation of natural resources. This language 
accommodates the interests of the State and Federal wildlife agencies 
as well as the needs of the military.
  While the agreement was negotiated on the House side, I would like to 
make several observations regarding the differences between the current 
law and this agreement. The most important change in the law, of 
course, is that development of the natural resources management plans 
would become mandatory. In practical terms however, this provision 
would better conform to and encourage the current practice of the 
military, which already has a policy of developing these plans.
  An equally important change to the law would be that preparation and 
implementation of the plans would be the responsibility of the 
Secretary of the appropriate military department, rather than the 
Secretary of Defense. Extensive discussions last year revolved around 
attempts to agree on a dispute resolution process in the event that the 
Department of Defense, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State 
fish and wildlife agency could not agree on the development of a 
particular plan. The balance struck in the current agreement between 
the requirement to prepare the plans, and the discretion afforded the 
Secretary of the individual military department regarding the content 
of each plan, seems to me to be a good one.

  Greater specificity would be provided for the contents of the plans, 
which are to provide for, among other things and to the extent 
appropriate, fish and wildlife management and habitat enhancement, 
establishment of management goals and objectives, and sustainable use 
by the public.
  The amendment also provides for an opportunity for the public to 
comment on individual plans, as well as a review of each military 
installation by the Secretary of the appropriate military department to 
determine whether new plans should be prepared or existing plans should 
be modified. In addition, the amendment would also require annual 
reports by the Secretaries of Defense and the Interior regarding 
funding for implementation of the Sikes Act. The Department of Defense 
currently spends approximately $5 million for developing plans under 
the Sikes Act, but there are few cost estimates for State fish and 
wildlife agencies, as well as for the Fish and Wildlife Service. Thus, 
these annual reports should provide valuable information.
  The amendment also seeks to encourage cooperative agreements for the 
funding of management and conservation measures without specifying 
particular cost sharing or matching requirements.
  I would note that there is one substantive change between the House 
language and this amendment. This change was negotiated between the 
Committees on Environment and Public Works and Armed Services, and 
approved by all interested parties, including the Departments of 
Defense and the Interior, and the International Association of State 
Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Specifically, the deadline for completing 
the natural resource management plans is extended from 2 to 3 years 
from the date of the initial report to Congress, which itself is 
required 1 year from the date of enactment. This change should enable 
the Department of Defense to complete the plans consistent with its own 
internal time frames, without unnecessarily missing any statutory 
deadlines.

[[Page S7108]]

  I would note that jurisdiction of the Sikes Act, since its passage in 
1960, has always rested with the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works. Bills to amend and reauthorize the act, including one that was 
introduced in the 103d Congress containing substantive revisions 
similar to the revisions in this amendment, have all been referred to 
that committee. The fact that reauthorization of the Sikes Act is being 
done through the DOD authorization bill represents the fortuitous 
circumstance that after more than 1 year of debate, agreement happened 
to be reached by all parties at this particular time in this particular 
context. I do not expect that this circumstance would alter 
jurisdiction over the Sikes Act in the future. Nevertheless, the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works has always worked 
cooperatively on that portion of the Sikes Act pertaining to military 
installations in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.
  In closing, Mr. President, I believe that this amendment will improve 
the Sikes Act significantly, and represents a major achievement in 
environmental law in this Congress. The speed with which this 
legislation has moved in this Congress understates its importance both 
for the agenda of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and for 
efforts to conserve natural resources nationwide. I would especially 
like to thank both the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Readiness, Senator Inhofe, and the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services and manager of the bill, Senator Thurmond, 
for their cooperation and efforts in facilitating approval of this 
amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Chafee, the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, in supporting 
an amendment to S. 936, the Defense Authorization Act. This amendment 
will reauthorize and improve a law commonly known as the Sikes Act. The 
amendment will reauthorize the law through the year 2003.
  The Sikes Act authorizes the Secretary of Defense to manage fish and 
wildlife and other natural resources on military lands. The Department 
of Defense controls nearly 25 million acres of land at approximately 
900 military installations. These lands encompass all major land types 
in the United States and include habitat for threatened and endangered 
species, historic and archaeological sites, and other cultural and 
natural resources.
  Senator Chafee and I have been working, in consultation with the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, to reauthorize and amend the Sikes 
Act, a law within our committee's jurisdiction, for a number of years. 
Unfortunately, we were unable during the last Congress to draft 
amendments that were acceptable to the Interior Department, the 
Department of Defense, and the International Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies. I am pleased to say that this amendment has the 
support of all three. In addition, a nearly identical version was 
recently passed by the House on the House Defense Authorization bill.
  This amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to prepare 
integrated natural resources management plans for military 
installations, unless the Secretary determines that preparation of a 
plan for a particular installation is inappropriate. Plans are to be 
prepared, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 
the State fish and wildlife agency, within 4 years after the date of 
enactment. I urge all three agencies to work closely together, taking 
full advantage of their respective resources and expertise, to develop 
mutually acceptable plans to conserve fish and wildlife and other 
natural resources on our Nation's military installations. Finally, the 
amendment establishes annual review and reporting requirements to 
ensure that required plans are prepared and implemented.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Chafee and his 
staff for the willingness to work in a cooperative manner with myself 
and the staff of the Subcommittee on Readiness.
  The Sikes Act Amendment is a significant item of legislation that 
will directly impact the Department of Defense management of the 25 
million acres of land it controls.
  While Senator Chafee has highlighted some of the positive 
environmental aspects of this legislation, I would like to stress the 
need to ensure the preservation of the military mission, readiness and 
training.
  The Sikes Act Amendment makes the preparation of integrated natural 
resource management plans mandatory for the military departments.
  I have reluctantly agreed to the mandatory language of this provision 
because the Department of Defense and military departments support it 
and have insisted that this new environmental requirement will not 
undermine the military mission and will not increase funding for such 
planning activities.
  It should be made clear that:
  The Sikes Act Amendment is not intended to enlarge the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service or State fish and wildlife agency authority over the 
management of military lands.
  Natural resource management plans should be prepared to assist 
installation commanders in conservation and rehabilitation efforts that 
are consistent with the use of military lands for the readiness and 
training of the U.S. Armed Forces.
  It is understood that many installations, about 80 percent, have 
already completed integrated natural resource management plans in 
cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and appropriate 
State fish and game agencies.
  Given the level of agency cooperation, the time, the personnel, and 
funds involved in the completion of existing natural resource 
management plans, it is expected that most of these plans will satisfy 
the requirements of the Sikes Act Amendment and will not have to be 
redone.
  I want to close with an emphasis on the need to ensure that the 
amendment will not result in an increased funding level for natural 
resource management plans and will not undermine military readiness and 
training.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, I intend to follow the 
implementation of this amendment, and its impact on military readiness, 
very carefully.
  Senator Chafee, I want to thank you again and express my appreciation 
for our ability to work together on the Sikes Act Amendment and other 
environmental issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 706) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. 624, as modified

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Navy to carry out a program 
 to demonstrate expanded use of mutitechnology automated reader cards 
               throughout the Navy and the Marine Corps)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up an amendment numbered 624 offered 
by Senator Robb, and I send a modified amendment to the desk. The 
amendment would require the Secretary of the Navy to carry out an 
expanded use of multitechnology automated reader cards throughout the 
Navy and Marine Corps, and I believe this amendment has been cleared by 
the other side.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
modified amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Robb, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 624, as modified:
       At the end of subtitle E of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 369. MULTITECHNOLOGY AUTOMATED READER CARD DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Required.--The Secretary of the Navy shall 
     carry out a program to demonstrate expanded use of 
     multitechnology automated reader cars throughout the Navy and 
     the Marine Corps. The demonstration program shall include 
     demonstration of the use of the so-called ``smartship'' 
     technology of the ship-to-shore work load/off load program of 
     the Navy.
       (b) Period of Program.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
     demonstration program for two years beginning not later than 
     January 1, 1998.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after termination of 
     the demonstration program, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report on the experience under the program to the Committee 
     on Armed Services of the Senate and

[[Page S7109]]

     the Committee on National Security of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (d) Funding.--(1) Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated under section 301(1), $36,000,000 shall be 
     available for the demonstration program under this section, 
     of which $6,300,000 shall be available for demonstration of 
     the use of the so-called ``smartship'' technology of the 
     ship-to-shore work load off load program of the Navy.
       (2) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 301(1), the total amount available for cold weather 
     clothing is decreased by $36,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 624), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 631

    (Purpose: To restore the garnishment and involuntary allotment 
 provisions of title 5, United States Code, to the provisions as they 
 were in effect before amendment by the National Defense Authorization 
                       Act for Fiscal Year 1996)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Idaho [Mr. 
Craig], I offer an amendment No. 631, that would change the method for 
processing court-ordered Federal employees' wage garnishment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Craig, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 631:
       At the end of title XI, add the following:

     SEC. 1107. GARNISHMENT AND INVOLUNTARY ALLOTMENT.

       Section 5520a of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (j), by striking out paragraph (2) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(2) Such regulations shall provide that an agency's 
     administrative costs in executing a garnishment action may be 
     added to the garnishment, and that the agency may retain 
     costs recovered as offsetting collections.'';
       (2) in subsection (k)--
       (A) by striking out paragraph (3); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3); and
       (3) by striking out subsection (l).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 631) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. 645

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Gorton, the 
distinguished Senator from Washington, I call up an amendment that 
would clarify the implementation date of the designated provider 
program of the uniform services treatment facilities, USTF, to clarify 
the limitation on total payments and allow the USTF to purchase 
pharmaceuticals under the preferred pricing levels applicable to 
Government agencies, No. 645.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for Mr. Gorton, for 
     himself, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. D'Amato, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 645:
       Page 217, after line 15, insert the following new subtitle 
     heading:

                    Subtitle A--Health Care Services

       Page 226, after line 2, insert the following new subtitle:

          Subtitle B--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities

     SEC. 711. IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGNATED PROVIDER AGREEMENTS 
                   FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT FACILITIES.

       (a) Commencement of Health Care Services Under Agreement.--
     Subsection (c) of section 722 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201, 
     10 U.S.C. 1073 note) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B);
       (2) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Unless''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The Secretary may modify the effective date 
     established under paragraph (1) for an agreement to permit a 
     transition period of not more than six months between the 
     date on which the agreement is executed by the parties and 
     the date on which the designated provider commences the 
     delivery of health care services under the agreement.''.
       (b) Temporary Continuation of Existing Participation 
     Agreements.--Subsection (d) of such section is amended by 
     inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, 
     including any transitional period provided by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (2) of such subsection''.
       (c) Arbitration.--Subsection (c) of such section is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) In the case of a designated provider whose service 
     area has a managed care support contract implemented under 
     the TRICARE program as of September 23, 1996, the Secretary 
     and the designated provider shall submit to binding 
     arbitration if the agreement has not been executed by October 
     1, 1997. The arbitrator, mutually agreed upon by the 
     Secretary and the designated provider, shall be selected from 
     the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator shall 
     develop an agreement that shall be executed by the Secretary 
     and the designated provider by January 1, 1998. 
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the effective date for such 
     agreement shall be not more than six months after the date on 
     which the agreement is executed.''.
       (d) Contracting Out of Primary Care Services.--Subsection 
     (f)(2) of such section is amended by inserting at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``Such limitation on contracting out 
     primary care services shall only apply to contracting out to 
     a health maintenance organization, or to a licensed insurer 
     that is not controlled directly or indirectly by the 
     designated provider, except in the case of primary care 
     contracts between a designated provider and a contractor in 
     force as of September 23, 1996. Subject to the overall 
     enrollment restriction under section 724 and limited to the 
     historical service area of the designated provider, 
     professional service agreements or independent contractor 
     agreements with primary care physicians or groups of primary 
     care physicians, however organized, and employment 
     agreements with such physicians shall not be considered to 
     be the type of contracts that are subject to the 
     limitation of this subsection, so long as the designated 
     provider itself remains at risk under its agreement with 
     the Secretary in the provision of services by any such 
     contracted physicians or groups of physicians.''.
       (e) Uniform Benefit.--Section 723(b) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (PL 104-201, 
     10 USC 1073 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (1), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, subject to any modification to the 
     effective date the Secretary may provide pursuant to section 
     722(c)(2)'', and
       (2) in subsection (2), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, or the effective date of 
     agreements negotiated pursuant to section 722(c)(3)''.

     SEC. 712. LIMITATION ON TOTAL PAYMENTS.

       Section 726(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201, 10 U.S.C. 1073 
     note) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``In establishing the ceiling rate for enrollees 
     with the designated providers who are also eligible for the 
     Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed 
     Services, the Secretary of Defense shall take into account 
     the health status of the enrollees.''.

     SEC. 713. CONTINUED ACQUISITION OF REDUCED-COST DRUGS.

       Section 722 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 10 U.S.C. 1073 note) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Continued Acquisition of Reduced-Cost Drugs.--A 
     designated provider shall be treated as part of the 
     Department of Defense for purposes of section 8126 of title 
     38, United States Code, in connection with the provision by 
     the designated provider of health care services to covered 
     beneficiaries pursuant to the participation agreement of the 
     designated provider under section 718(c) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 
     101-510; 42 U.S.C. 248c note) or pursuant to the agreement 
     entered into under subsection (b).''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 645) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. 787

        (Purpose: To Make Technical Corrections to Section 123)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy and myself, I 
offer an amendment which corrects a drafting error in the bill 
regarding how the cost cap for the Seawolf submarine program is 
defined. Section 123 of this bill, S. 936, was included to clarify 
those costs that are included and those that are excluded from the 
total cost cap on the Seawolf program. This amendment does not change 
the Seawolf cost cap up or down, but merely corrects an error we made 
in crafting the language in the committee's markup of the defense 
authorization.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S7110]]


       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Kennedy, 
     for himself, and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 
     787:
       Strike out section 123 and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:

     SEC. 123. EXCEPTION TO COST LIMITATION FOR SEAWOLF SUBMARINE 
                   PROGRAM.

       In the application of the limitation in section 133(a) of 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
     (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 211), there shall not be taken 
     into account $745,700,000 of the amounts that were 
     appropriated for procurement of Seawolf class submarines 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act (that amount 
     having been appropriated for fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 
     1992 for the procurement of SSN-23, SSN-24, and SSN-25 
     Seawolf class submarines, which have been canceled).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 787) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. 658

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Lugar, Bingaman, and 
other cosponsors, I ask to call up amendment No. 658 that would restore 
the funds requested in the President's budget for the Department of 
Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and related programs at 
the Department of Energy.
  I ask unanimous consent at this point that Senator Glenn be added as 
a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 658

  Mr. LEVIN. I send a modification to the desk. I believe this 
amendment has been cleared by the other side.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The modification follows:

       On page 2 of the amendment change line 12, which currently 
     reads ``$56 million'' to ``40 million dollars''.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to speak as a cosponsor of the 
amendment offered by my colleagues, Messrs. Bingaman, Levin, Lugar, 
Domenici, and others, to restore $60 million to the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction (CTR) Program, $25 million to the Department of Energy's 
Materials Protection Control and Accounting [MPC&A] Program, and $50 
million to the International Nuclear Safety Program. The administration 
requested these funds because they are needed to serve our national 
security interests. I have heard or seen nothing to dispute this basic 
conclusion and therefore strongly support the full requested amounts.
  These funds serve our interests because they work to alleviate one of 
the gravest national security threats facing our nation. Acknowledged 
by the President and Congress, by liberals and conservatives, by the 
House and the Senate, by Republicans and Democrats alike--indeed by all 
thinking Americans--this threat arises from the dangers all of us would 
face from the further erosion of Russia's ability to protect its 
weapons-usable nuclear materials and the technology and dual-use goods 
needed to produce them. In light of this broad national consensus, I 
find it hard to understand why we are here today debating a proposal to 
slash the funds for the programs designed to alleviate this very 
threat.
  Congress should, of course, give close scrutiny to all Federal 
programs to see if further economies can be made. No one should look 
upon the Nunn-Lugar program as immune from vigorous congressional 
oversight. But when one considers the magnitude of the potential 
threats our country faces from these deadly materials, and considers 
these threats in light of the genuine progress that has been made 
(thanks to Nunn-Lugar) in reducing clear and present nuclear dangers in 
the former Soviet Union, it should be clear to all that Congress has, 
if anything, short-changed this program rather than over-funded it.
  I find these proposed cuts all the more remarkable given the 
committee's apparent determination to shovel hundreds of millions of 
additional taxpayer dollars at the National Missile Defense Program, 
despite the disturbing implications of that program for the future of 
the Antiballistic Missile [ABM] Treaty, and despite any serious 
accounting for precisely how these additional funds will be spent.
  In 1991, a far-sighted bipartisan coalition gathered to support a 
proposal offered by our colleagues, Messrs. Nunn and Lugar, to curb 
present and potential future proliferation threats emanating from the 
collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1997, there continues to be a strong 
consensus both in Congress and across America that it is in our 
collective national interest to address these threats. Some misinformed 
commentators have attacked the CTR and MPC&A programs as a form of 
``subsidy of Russia's nuclear security'' or ``foreign aid.'' Perhaps 
what the critics fear most is that the programs might actually succeed 
in achieving their ambitious goals, and thereby reduce the need for our 
government to spend additional billions more to address these grave 
foreign threats.
  I will leave it for others to speculate further about what must be 
motivating critics of the Nunn-Lugar program--and some of these 
criticisms might occasionally even be on target--but I remain convinced 
that the modest funds our country is allocating to CTR and MPC&A 
efforts are not only well within our means, but vital to our long-term 
national security and nonproliferation interests. And these funds are 
truly modest, compared against the billions we continue to spend on 
such programs as the B-2, the ever-expanding National Missile Defense 
program, the airborne and space-based laser programs, and other dubious 
programs that are well funded in the present bill. A $135 million cut 
to these Nunn-Lugar activities is the last thing this program needs. 
What, after all, has the program already accomplished?
  The CTR Program has worked and continues to work to ensure that 
significant numbers of strategic Soviet nuclear weapons will not be 
available for use against the United States and its friends and allies 
around the world. The program has worked to help reduce the risk of 
nuclear materials finding their way into black markets in unstable 
regions around the world. The program has worked to facilitate the 
removal of all nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan. The 
program has worked to help remove over 1,400 nuclear warheads from 
Russia's strategic weapons systems, and to eliminate hundreds of 
delivery vehicles for such systems, including submarine launched 
ballistic missile launchers, ICBM silos, and strategic bombers.
  The committee has claimed that the CTR Program can be cut because the 
loss could be made up with prior years' funds. Yet, Defense Secretary 
Cohen wrote to the chairman of the committee on June 19 that ``All 
unobligated CTR funds have already been earmarked for specific 
projects''. The CTR Program continues to serve the national interest by 
helping to eliminate strategic arms programs in Russia and Ukraine--if 
anything, Congress should be debating today measures to accelerate 
these efforts rather than to chop them back. The committee's proposal 
would only work to convert the CTR Program into a competitive threat 
renewal program.
  A few years before Congress made the mistake of eliminating the 
Office of Technology Assessment, that organization produced an 
excellent report entitled, ``Proliferation of Weapons of Mass 
Destruction: Assessing the Risks'' (OTA-ISC-559, August 1993). On page 
6 of that report, readers will find the following unambiguous finding:

       ``Obtaining fissionable nuclear weapon material (enriched 
     uranium or plutonium) today remains the greatest single 
     obstacle most countries would face in the pursuit of nuclear 
     weapons.''

  Those were OTA's words, ``the greatest single obstacle'' to 
proliferation. Now, what kept Saddam from getting the bomb sooner than 
he could have? Access to special nuclear material. What is America's 
leading defense against future nuclear terrorism? Limiting access to 
special nuclear materials. We should not be cutting programs that help 
Russia to serve our common interest in limiting international 
trafficking in special nuclear materials. We should instead be 
reaffirming and even expanding such programs. Helping Russia to serve 
our interest in these ways is not foreign aid, it is part and parcel of 
our national defense strategy.

  The MPC&A programs run by the Department of Energy work specifically

[[Page S7111]]

on this problem of enhancing controls over these special nuclear 
materials, plutonium and highly enriched uranium. I have seen the 
letter that the Energy Secretary sent to the chairman of the committee 
on June 19--Secretary Pena wrote that the proposed $25 million cut in 
the MPC&A program would lead to a 2-year delay in achieving key program 
objectives. This program deserves our full support. After all, as 
Secretary Pena says, this program has secured ``tens of tons'' of 
nuclear material at 25 sites, and is working on enhanced controls at a 
total of 50 sites where this material is at risk in Russia, the Newly 
Independent States, and the Baltics. When we consider that we are 
dealing with a problem involving hundreds of tons of such material, it 
hardly seems wise for us now to be cutting back on our efforts to 
address this formidable threat to our national security.
  Another program cut by the committee is the International Nuclear 
Safety Program. That program is essentially an investment to reduce the 
risk that fallout from a future Russian nuclear reactor accident will 
not once again--only a few years after the disastrous Chernobyl 
accident--be falling down from the sky on United States citizens and 
other people around the world. There is no fallout defense initiative--
or FDI, so to speak--in this bill that would offer any shield over our 
country or the territory of our allies against such radioactive debris 
from a future reactor explosion in Russia. The best initiative of this 
nature is the one in this amendment, to restore the funds needed to 
enhance the safety and security of certain old Soviet-designed power 
reactors in the Newly Independent States and Russia.
  So, in conclusion, I believe that the bipartisan consensus behind 
Nunn-Lugar, which is represented in this bipartisan amendment offered 
today, is alive and well because it addresses genuine threats to our 
security. I hope all Members will support full funding for these 
programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 658), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 778

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I feel constrained to oppose the Levin 
amendment provision that is filed on this bill before the Senate, as it 
is a matter that is properly within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary 
Committee which has not had an opportunity to consider it.
  More importantly, in my view, this amendment, while well intentioned, 
is unwise policy.
  This amendment would essentially abolish the Federal Government's 
purchasing preference for products supplied by Federal Prison 
Industries [FPI], also known by its trade name of UNICOR.
  FPI is the Federal corporation charged by Congress with the mission 
of training and employing Federal prison inmates.
  For more than 60 years, this correctional program has provided 
inmates with the opportunity to learn practical work habits and skills, 
and has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support in Congress and from each 
Republican and Democrat administration.
  FPI and its training programs at Federal prisons across the Nation 
have been credited with helping to lower recidivism and ensuring better 
job-related success for prisoners upon their release--a result that all 
of us applaud.
  This amendment, in its starkest terms, requires of us a choice--
either we want Federal inmates to work, or we do not. I believe that we 
do want inmates to work, and therefore I must oppose this amendment. I 
say to my colleagues, if you believe in maintaining good order and 
discipline in prisons, or if you believe in the rehabilitation of 
inmates when possible, you should be opposed to this amendment.
  Under current law, FPI may sell their products and services only to 
the Federal Government. The amendment we are debating would not alter 
this sales restriction.
  To ensure that FPI has adequate work to keep inmates occupied, 
Congress created a special FPI procurement preference, under which 
Federal agencies are required to make their purchases from FPI over 
other vendors as long as FPI can meet price, quality, and delivery 
requirements.
  This amendment would remove this procurement preference. Without the 
Federal Government's procurement preference, FPI probably could not 
exist. Again, FPI is not permitted to compete for sales in the private 
market. It may only sell to the Federal Government, and then only if it 
can meet price, quality, and delivery requirements.
  Nothing short of the viability of Federal Prison Industries is at 
issue here. Under full competition for Federal contracts, combined with 
market restrictions, FPI could not survive.

  My colleagues should remember that the primary mission of FPI is not 
profit, but rather, the safe and effective incarceration and 
rehabilitation of Federal prisoners. Needless to say, FPI operates 
under constraints on its efficiency no private sector manufacturer must 
operate under. For example, most private sector companies invest in the 
latest, most efficient technology and equipment to increase 
productivity and reduce labor costs. Because of its different mission, 
FPI frequently must make its manufacturing processes as labor-intensive 
as possible--in order to keep as many inmates as possible occupied.
  The Secure correctional environment FPI in which FPI operates 
requires additional inefficiencies. Tools must be carefully checked in 
and out before and after each shift, and at every break. Inmate workers 
frequently must be searched before returning to their cells. And FPI 
factories must shut down whenever inmate unrest or institutional 
disturbances occur. No private sector business operates under these 
competitive disadvantages.
  The average Federal inmate is 37 years old, has only an 8th grade 
education, and has never held a steady legal job. Some studies have 
estimated that the productivity of a worker with this profile is about 
one-quarter of that of the average worker in the private sector.
  My colleague's amendment has not been considered by the Judiciary 
Committee, which has jurisdiction over FPI and, more generally, 
National penitentiaries under rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate.
  The Committee has not had the opportunity to consider the full impact 
of this proposal on FPI and prison work.
  All share the goal of ensuring that FPI does not adversely impact 
private business. Indeed, FPI can only enter new lines of business, or 
expand existing lines, until an exhaustive review has been undertaken 
to the impact on the private sector. Again, this is a restraint that 
most other businesses do not have imposed on them.
  FPI has made considerable efforts to minimize any adverse impact on 
the private sector. Over the past few years, it has transferred factory 
operations for multiple factory locations to new prisons, in order to 
create necessary inmate jobs without increasing FPI sales. FPI has also 
begun operations such as a mattress recycling factory, a laundry, a 
computer repair factory, and a mail bag repair factory, among others, 
to diversify its operations and minimize its impact on the private 
sector, while providing essential prison jobs.

  I agree with my colleagues who believe that we must address the 
issues raised by prison industries nationwide. As we continue, 
appropriately, to incarcerate more serious criminals in both Federal 
and State prisons, productive work must be found for them. At the same 
time, we must ensure that jobs are not taken from law-abiding workers.
  On jobs there is substantial evidence that FPI actually creates a 
substantial number of private sector jobs. In fiscal year 1996, some 
14,000 vendors nationwide registered with FPI, and supplied over $276 
million in sales to FPI.
  Every dollar FPI receives in revenue is recycled into the private 
sector. Out of each dollar, 56 cents go to the purchase of raw 
materials from the private sector; 19 cents go to salaries of FPI 
staff; 17 cents go to equipment, services, and overhead, all supplied 
by the private sector; 7 cents go to inmate pay, which in turn is 
passed along to

[[Page S7112]]

pay victim restitution, child support, alimony, and fines. FPI inmates 
are required to apply 50 percent of their earnings to these costs. One 
cent goes to activating new FPI factories--again, with equipment 
purchased from the private sector. Private businesses in every State 
benefit from these sales.
  In short, FPI is a proven correctional program. It enhances the 
security of Federal prisons, helps ensure that Federal inmates work, 
and helps in their rehabilitation when possible. The amendment before 
us now would do immense harm to this highly successful program, and I 
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  I think it is the right thing to do to oppose it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my good friend, Senator Hatch, has made 
reference to the private sector benefiting from Federal Prison 
Industries. The private sector has spoken loud and clear in letters to 
us. The NFIB says that this amendment is important because:

       Today federal agencies are forced to buy prison-made 
     products. . . . This is another example of avoidable 
     government waste, as virtually all such items are available 
     from the private sector which provides them more efficiently 
     and at lower prices. Mandatory purchases cost America jobs. 
     Firms that can't enter an industry or expand production can't 
     hire new employees.

  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says:

       We believe that our Federal prison system should not be 
     given preferential treatment at the cost of our Nation's 
     small business owners. We believe that there are other 
     substantial sources of work available to inmates that would 
     not infringe on the private sector's opportunities to compete 
     for government contracts.

  The National Association of Manufacturers says:

       The present system that gives FPI a virtual lock on federal 
     government contracts has hurt thousands of businesses, 
     resulting in higher costs for goods and services bought by 
     the government and in many instances has resulted in loss of 
     jobs and business opportunities for our members.
       Removal of the ``FPI mandatory source status'' is an idea 
     whose time has come.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
letters from the NFIB, the Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Association of Manufacturers and Access Products Inc. be printed in the 
Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               National Federation


                                      of Independent Business,

                                    Washington, DC, June 19, 1997.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: On behalf of the more than 600,000 
     members of the National Federation of Independent Business 
     (NFIB), I am writing to urge the Congress to take action to 
     ensure that increased competition is encouraged between small 
     business and prisons.
       It is well known that government agencies sometimes compete 
     against private businesses in providing goods and services. 
     Today, federal agencies are forced to buy prison-made 
     products through Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI). It is 
     considered the mandatory source of some 85 items ranging from 
     general supplies to office furniture. This is yet another 
     example of avoidable government waste as virtually all such 
     items are available from the private sector, which provides 
     them more efficiently and at lower prices. In addition, such 
     mandatory purchases from the FPI costs America jobs. Firms 
     that can't enter an industry or expand production, can't hire 
     new employees.
       In a survey of our members, 70 percent believe that 
     government agencies should not be allowed to compete against 
     private businesses. In addition, the prohibition of 
     competition between government agencies and small businesses 
     was one of the top recommendations of the 1995 White House 
     Conference on Small Business. Small businesses do not want to 
     prohibit prison industries from entering the market, they 
     just want a fair and level playing field upon which to 
     compete against the FPI.
       We urge you to take action to ensure that the FPI competes 
     fairly for federal agencies' business. Small businesses 
     should not have to compete with government-supported entities 
     with exclusive contracts that give them an immediate and 
     unfair advantage.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Dan Danner,

                                                   Vice President,
     Federal Governmental Relations.
                                  ____

         Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America,
                                    Washington, DC, June 19, 1997.
     Re Prison Industry Mandatory Preference.
       Members of the United States Senate: I am writing to urge 
     your support for the amendment to be offered by Senators 
     Levin and Abraham to eliminate mandatory preference for 
     prison industry goods for government contracts to S. 936, the 
     fiscal year 1998 defense authorization bill.
       Currently, the federal government is required to purchase 
     needed goods from the U.S. Federal Prison Industries (FPI) if 
     available. This law was enacted in the 1930's and has 
     resulted in a growing encroachment upon private sector 
     enterprise. For example, FPI now accounts for 25% of textiles 
     and furniture purchased by the federal government. The 
     amendment by Senators Levin and Abraham would remove Federal 
     Prison Industries as a``required source of supply'' for 
     federal government purchasing.
       The FPI produces more than 85 different products and 
     services and in 1994 sold approximately $392 million worth of 
     goods and services to the federal government, causing it to 
     be ranked 54th among the ``Top 100 Federal Contractors.'' 
     Additionally, we understand that in order to accommodate the 
     growth in the prison population, FPI is planning to expand 
     its sales. The Chamber supports the National Performance 
     Review recommendation that the FPI's status as a mandatory 
     source be eliminated and that FPI be required to compete 
     commercially for federal business.
       The Chamber has long-standing policy that the government 
     should not perform the production of goods or services for 
     itself or others if acceptable privately owned and operated 
     services are or can be made available for such purposes. We 
     recognize the importance of the productive training and 
     employment of our nation's inmate population. However, we 
     believe that our federal prison system should not be given 
     preferential treatment at the cost of our nation's small 
     business owners. We believe that there are other substantial 
     sources of work available to inmates that would not infringe 
     upon the private sector's opportunities to compete for 
     government contracts. Clearly, a balance must be struck 
     between these two competing goals.
       The U.S. Chamber, the world's largest business federation, 
     represents an underlying membership of more than three 
     million businesses and organizations of every size, sector 
     and region. On behalf of this membership, I strongly urge 
     your support of the amendment to the defense authorization 
     bill to eliminate the FPI mandatory source of supply 
     requirement and to open these government contracts to fair 
     competition from the private sector.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                                Manufacturers,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 1997.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: On behalf of the 10,000 small and 
     medium members of the National Association of Manufacturers, 
     I would like to restate our support for your bill S. 339. 
     This bill would restore competition to federal procurement by 
     ending the Federal Prison Industries (FPI) mandatory source 
     status.
       The present system that gives FPI a virtual lock on federal 
     government contracts has hurt thousands of businesses, 
     resulted in higher cost for goods and services bought by the 
     Government and in many instances has resulted in loss of jobs 
     and business opportunities for our members.
       Removal of the ``FPI mandatory source status'' is an idea 
     which time has come and it has received the support of this 
     current administration in its National Performance Review 
     Recommendations.
       We trust that you will move quickly on gaining passage of 
     S. 339 and restore fairness and equity to thousands of small 
     and medium size manufacturers.
           Sincerely,
     James P. Carty.
                                  ____



                                        Access Products, Inc.,

                             Colorado Springs, CO, April 15, 1997.
     Senator Wayne Allard,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Allard: I wrote to you in March of 1997 regarding 
     Federal Prison Industries and the unfair and uncompetitive 
     advantage it has over small companies such as mine who are 
     seeking to do business with the federal government.
       I have a very specific example which I am quite incensed 
     about, not only as a small business owner but as a taxpayer 
     as well.
       I recently lost an EDI bid to Unicor. The contractor was 
     Scott AFB and the item solicited was 86 Series 2 
     remanufactured toner cartridges. For your information, the 
     FRQ# was F1162397T2361. Unicor bid on this item and simply 
     because Unicor did bid, I was told that the award had to be 
     given to Unicor. Unicor won this bid at $45 per unit. My 
     company bid $22 per unit. The way I see it, the government 
     just overspent my tax dollars to the tune of $1978. The total 
     amount of my bid was less than that.
       Do you seriously believe that this type of procurement is 
     cost-effective? Forget about fairness to small business--that 
     seems to be an issue lost in the halls of Congress.
       I lost business, and my tax dollars were misused because of 
     unfair procurement practices mandated by federal regulations. 
     This is a prime example, and I am certain not the only one, 
     of how the procurement system is being misused and small 
     businesses in this

[[Page S7113]]

     country are being excluded from competition, with the full 
     support of federal regulations and the seeming approval of 
     Congress. It is far past the time to curtail this ``company'' 
     known as Federal Prison Industries and require them to be 
     competitive for the benefit of all taxpayers.
       What will it take to convince you that this is an issue 
     which deserves your attention and your support? Perhaps a 
     visit to my manufacturing facility in Colorado Springs would 
     help. Meet the people who pay their taxes only to have them 
     misused by overspending as per government regulations. I'm 
     sure they will feel their tax dollars could be more wisely 
     used. Meet the people who could also fail to prosper if my 
     company is rendered unable to do business with the federal 
     government because of uncompetitive procurement practices. 
     This is the tip of the iceberg in my industry and I have no 
     wish to go down like the Titanic.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Sharon Krell,
                                                    Manager/Owner.

  Mr. LEVIN. 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. BROWNBACK. 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of notes about 
an upcoming event and something that took place today, and then I have 
business to conduct before the Senate.

                          ____________________