[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.
____________________