Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 97 (Thursday, July 10, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 97 (Thursday, July 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7145-S7205]
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

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have a pending amendment, the Levin
amendment, which I am strongly opposed to. Let me just basically state
what I would like to do. I would like to set the issue in perspective.
I am now working with the Federal Prison Industries to see if there
might be a second-degree amendment they could support. I intend to try
to work with Senator Levin and his staff to see if something can be
worked out. But I am strongly opposed to this.
Let me begin with Alexis de Tocqueville and work up to the Levin
amendment. When Alexis de Tocqueville came to America, he came

[[Page S7146]]

to America to study American prisons. He ended up writing a book about
democracy in America, which turned out to be the greatest chronicle
ever written of our great country. But one of the things Alexis de
Tocqueville wrote in his other book about prisons was that we had the
model prison system on the planet because we had a mandatory work
requirement. As a result, prisoners all over America worked, generally,
12, 14, 16 hours a day. De Tocqueville noted that they worked hard, but
that it probably made life bearable, and that it would have been worse
had they sat idle in prisons.
In fact, Mr. President, we had the model prison industry in the world
until the Great Depression. During the Great Depression, we ended up in
a period of great economic unen-lightenment, passing a series of bills
that destroyed the greatest prison industry that the world has ever
known. We passed the Hawes-Cooper bill in 1929, we passed the Sumners-
Ashherst bill in 1935, and we passed the Walsh-Healey bill in 1936.
Here is what these bills said. They said that nothing produced by
prison labor can be transported across State lines without losing the
protections otherwise afforded interstate commerce. They said nothing
produced by prison labor can be transported across State lines to be
sold in the marketplace, and they limited the use of prison labor. In
other words, if you haven't figured it out yet, these three bills
criminalized prison labor in America.
As a result, today, we have the absurd situation that we have 1.1
million people in State and Federal prisons, almost all of them young
men in the peak work period of their life and because of special
interests--business and labor, I might add--we are forcing the American
taxpayer to pay $22,000 a year to let someone sit idle in air
conditioning watching color television in prison, while American
workers break their backs working to pay to keep these people in
prison.
Now, the only thing under Federal law that we can ask the Federal
prisoners to do is to make things to sell to the Federal Government.
They can't produce things to sell in the marketplace. We spend more to
keep somebody in prison than we would sending them to Harvard
University. That is not even counting the cost of building the prison.
Now, the Senator from Michigan would say that we are going to come in
and disrupt the system whereby we force prisoners to work, to make
furniture for the Government, or to make other things for the Defense
Department.
Now, if our colleague was really talking about procurement reform, I
would be a supporter. If this were a normal debate about price
competition, then I would have no objection to his amendment. But our
colleague, with all the talk about competition, is not talking about
removing restrictions that would let goods produced by prisoners be
sold on the open market. What he is proposing is that we disrupt the
Federal Prison Industries as they currently exist.
Now, let me review for you, if I may very quickly, how the Federal
Prison Industries system works. How the Federal Prison Industries works
is basically that the Government goes out and gets bids on goods and
establishes a market price, a fair procurement price. Then they have to
go to the Federal Prison Industries and on the basis of an established
price they have to give the prison system the right to produce these
goods.

Might I note that Federal Prison Industries has a procedure where, if
the Defense Department or any other part of Government is not satisfied
with the work they do, or with the price, they can appeal for a waiver.
Let me read to you from a letter that is signed by the Assistant
Attorney General who oversees the Federal Prisoner Work Program.

Federal Prison Industries does not abuse its mandatory
source status. If a customer feels that Federal Prison
Industries cannot meet its delivery, price, or technical
requirements, the customer may request [the customer is the
Government] a waiver of the mandatory sourcing.

Let me give you a concrete example because it is relevant to the
Senator's amendment.
If Federal prisoners are working to produce desks for the Government,
and the Government is not satisfied with the price or with the quality,
they can ask for a waiver so they don't have to buy the desk made by
prison labor.
Here are the facts. These waivers are processed quickly. It is an
average of 4 days between the time the waiver is requested and when it
is granted, or denied, and in 1996 Federal Prison Industries approved
90 percent of the requested waivers by Federal agencies.
Mr. President, granted, this is not a price competitive system. If
this were any other procedure, the Senator's amendment would make
perfectly good sense. Let's have competitive bidding. Let's have it at
the lowest possible price.
But we have 1.1 million people in State and Federal prisons. Because
of the power of organized labor and special interest business who are
more worried about their profits and their benefits than they are about
the taxpayer, we are in the absurd position that we have 1.1 million
people in prison, all prime working age males, for all practical
purposes, and they can't produce anything of value and sell it on the
world market to help defray the cost of keeping them in prison. So the
taxpayers pay $22,000 a year just to keep them in prison, not counting
the cost of building the prison. The only work we are getting out of
these people under this absurd situation is that we can force them to
work through a work program to produce things like furniture for the
Federal Government.
The Senator comes along, and says, ``Let's eliminate that system, and
let's have price competition.'' Well, the problem, as we all know, is
that the money that is going to the prisoners is going to do things
like pay for victims restitution, and court-ordered fines. This is the
only productive employment we have for people in Federal prisons. This
isn't a procurement issue. It is a criminal justice issue.
We ought not to be dealing with this provision on this bill. Let me
read for you from the same letter about what we know about people who
work in prison versus those who do not work in prison.

Findings demonstrate that inmates who work in Federal
Prison Industries in comparison to similar inmates who do not
have Federal prison industry experience have better
institutional adjustment and after release are significantly
more likely to be employed and significantly less likely to
commit another crime.

Also, as this letter, which I will put in the Record, demonstrates
over and over again, this is a law enforcement and security issue. If
we have all of these young males in prison, locked up, sitting idle, it
is a powder keg ready to explode. The only productive source we have to
put them to work, believing in the old Franklin adage, ``Idle hands are
the devil's workshop,'' is making goods for the Government.
If the Senator wants to try to refine the system, and work with
Federal Prison Industries, I am willing to work to see if we can do a
study and look. How competitive is the price? Could the system be
improved? But the idea that we are going to destroy the last vestiges
of work in prison for some individual special interest for private
manufacturers of furniture, or private manufacturers of anything,
simply neglects the fact that prison labor is an important part of
running a prison. It is the important part of preserving order. It is
the important part of vocational training. It is the important part of
rehabilitation.

It is dangerous to have 1.1 million young men sitting in prison with
nothing to do. It is also breaking the back of American workers to pay
for it.
What we ought to be debating is not the Senator's amendment to kill
what is left of the work requirement. What we ought to be debating is
repealing these three Depression-era laws and putting 1.1 million
prisoners to work, work them 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, and make
them to go to school at night. That is what we ought to be doing. In
fact, when I was chairman of the Commerce, State, Justice
appropriations subcommittee, we passed a bill in the Senate to do
exactly that. And then when all of the special interests got geared up
it died in conference and never became law.
So I think that this is a very dangerous amendment. This is something
that ought to be dealt with by the Judiciary Committee. This is a
criminal justice issue. If you want to argue this is a procurement
issue, I can't argue against the Senator. If we were simply

[[Page S7147]]

talking about procurement competitive bidding, it is obviously the way
to go. But we have 1.1 million people in prison. They don't have
anything to do. And to the extent that we can put them to work making
desks or other furniture for the Federal Government, we are at least
putting them to work. We are maintaining order in our prisons. We are
saving money. We are paying money for victims restitution. We are
paying money for court-ordered fines.
So to act as if this is just another procurement issue, clearly it is
not. Every time these people go to work, we have to count the tools
when they leave to be sure they are not taking something that can
become a weapon. We basically run it without much capital because we
want to use as many people as we can because we are not able to have
them produce things to sell on the market. We have elaborate procedures
that we have to go through to see that they don't compete with private
industry and to minimize their impact. All of these things drive up
costs.
But the point is when you have 1.1 million people in prison, State
and Federal, even if it is a very inefficient system by which you have
them work, you still benefit by having them work. They still benefit by
working.
So I think this is a very important issue and I would like to ask to
have the opportunity to see if we can work something out.
I have a new letter that just came over a minute ago from the
Assistant Director of Industries, Education and Vocational Training in
the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the Record.
Here is what it says, talking about the Levin amendment. `` * * * it
would have a devastating effect on Federal Prison Industries, Inc. and
on the ability of the Federal Prison Industries to support the mission
of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.''
I concur with that judgment. I would like to have this put in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Department of Justice,

Federal Bureau of Prisons,

Washington, DC, July 10, 1997.
Hon. Phil Gramm,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gramm: I have reviewed the attached draft
language, which I understand was introduced last night by
Senator Levin as an amendment to the Defense Authorization
bill.
This language is virtually identical in its effect to
language previously proposed by Senator Levin (S. 339). For
reasons previously explained in a letter from Assistant
Attorney General Andrew Fois to Senator Thurmond, it would
have a devastating effect on Federal Prison Industries, Inc.
(FPI) and on the ability of FPI to support the mission of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Sincerely,

Steve Schwalb,

Assistant Director,
Industries, Education and Vocational Training.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am not arguing that having real full-
blown price competition would not make sense under virtually any other
circumstance. But when we have literally a captive labor force at the
State and Federal level of 1.1 million people, it would be absolutely
suicidal from a societal point of view to limit the last work that
these people are allowed to do in the name of price competition when,
in fact, if we wanted to have price competition--in fact, let me say I
would support the Senator's amendment, if he would add to it that we
would repeal all of the provisions that limit the ability that we have
and that the States have in selling things produced by prisoners. If we
could allow prisoners to sell things on the open market subject to the
restrictions that they not sell it locally and that they not glut the
market, with that as a second-degree amendment, I would support this
amendment. Because if we didn't depend solely on Government work to
work prisoners, then I would see a broader extension for competition.
But this is the only thing that Congress allows these people to do.
What we are doing is just creating a hothouse for criminal behavior.
These people sit idly in prison with nothing to do because our laws
prevent them from working and then they get out and they commit more
crimes. They impose havoc and death on our society, and then we put
them back into prison.
So, if I sound that I am emotional about this issue, I am. This is a
very, very serious issue.
So I would like to have a chance to work with the Senator. I would
like to see if we could work out a second-degree amendment. But I
intend to resist this amendment. If we can't work something out, we are
going to have to have cloture on this amendment. Those are my rights as
a Senator. Those are the rules of the Senate. And I intend to stand by
my rights and abide by the rules of the Senate on this issue.
It is a very important issue. I am not sure that Members have thought
this thing through or know really anything about our problems with
Federal prison labor and State prison labor. But fortunately, having
been Justice Subcommittee chairman when I was on the Appropriations
Committee, I know it all too well. I am adamantly opposed to this
amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, talk about emotions. We ought to share the
emotions of the business people who can't compete, who aren't allowed
to compete on products that are being bought by the Federal
Government--their Government using taxpayers' money paying more for
products, created in a prison by prisoners, rather than by people
outside of prison, who are not allowed to compete because of the
monopoly which is given to Federal Prison Industries.
You talk about raw emotions. Try a Vietnam vet who is trying to
sustain a small business who isn't permitted to sell his product to the
Government at a much cheaper rate than the Government is paying with
Federal Prison Industries. You want to talk about raw emotions. Put
yourself in the position of the small business person.
Listen to this one from Access Products from Colorado Springs. They
couldn't bid on an Air Force contract for toner cartridges because the
FBI exercised its right to take the contract on a sole source basis.
This is a letter from a small business person in Colorado.

Federal Prison Industries bid on this item, and I was told
that the award had to be given to Federal Prison Industries.
Federal Prison Industries won the award at $45 per unit. My
company's bid was $22 per unit. The way I see it the
government just over-spent my tax dollars to the tune of
$1,978. Do you seriously believe that this type of
procurement 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 regulation.

Do you want to talk about emotions? My good friend from Texas: How
about the Vietnam vet trying to run a furniture business? This is what
he testified to in front of the House. ``Is it justice that Federal
Prison Industries would step in and take business away from a disabled
Vietnam veteran twice wounded fighting for our country effectively
destroying and bankrupting that hero's business which the Veterans
Administration suggested that they enter?''
My good friend from Texas usually believes in competition. I have
heard him on this floor as eloquently as anyone talking about
competition. That is all we are talking about here. We are only talking
about allowing people to compete to sell at the lowest price.
We are not trying to say that Federal Prison Industries should not be
able to compete on products that are sold to the Federal Government. Of
course, they should. But should not the small businessperson paying the
taxes be allowed to compete?
We talk about emotions on this floor and feeling emotional about a
subject. Put yourself in the position of the small businessperson whose
price is lower. Despite the fact that prisoners' wages run from 23
cents an hour to $1.15 an hour, despite the fact that Federal Prison
Industries pays no income taxes, no need to provide health or
retirement benefits to workers, a private businessperson still, in many
cases, is able to produce that product more cheaply and is told: Sorry,
it's got to go to Federal Prison Industries. He's a clothing producer;
he's a textile producer; he's a product producer, and he

[[Page S7148]]

is told Federal Prison Industries has the monopoly. They have exerted
their right to prevent you from coming in at a lower price. There is an
established price, and even though you can beat it, private
businessperson, sorry.
With all of the advantages, the price advantages that Federal Prison
Industries has--cheap labor, no medical cost, no income taxes--if they
can't beat a commercial price for a product, then the taxpayer should
not make up the difference.
Now, this is a very fundamental issue. Of course, prisoners should
work. But if they cannot with all those advantages produce a product
more cheaply than the commercial world can produce it, they ought to be
looking at other products. They ought to be looking at things which we
import and are sold to the Government. There they will not be unfairly
displacing American businesses and American workers who can produce
something more cheaply than can Federal Prison Industries.
Now, that is what this issue is about, and I want to make sure that
we all focus on this. This is an issue of where a business can provide
the product more cheaply. This is not an amendment which says that
where an American business can supply a product, Federal Prison
Industries should not be allowed to supply it to the Government. That
is not this amendment. This is simply an amendment which says where the
commercial provider can offer a product to the Government, its
Government, our Government at a cheaper price than Federal Prison
Industries, Federal Prison Industries should not be able to determine
that its product at a higher price must be bought by the Federal
Government.
Now, we are talking a lot of bucks here. The Defense Department is
the biggest purchaser. This is what Master Chief Petty Officer Hagan
stated when he was--he is from the Navy--testifying in front of the
House National Security Committee. This is his testimony about the
Federal Prison Industries monopoly on Government contracts and how that
monopoly has undermined the Navy's ability to improve living conditions
for sailors.
How is that for emotions? Are our sailors entitled to the best that
can be bought at the cheapest price? Or are we going to say that
because Federal Prison Industries hasn't figured out what they can
produce which is now imported or what they can produce which now has a
higher cost--and the recycling business is a wonderful example of
that--because Federal Prison Industries has not figured out what can be
produced which does not in a noncompetitive way displace American
businesses and American labor, that is OK.
It is not OK.
This is what the Navy witness said.

Speaking frankly, the FPI product is inferior, costs more,
and takes longer to procure. FPI has, in my opinion,
exploited their special status instead of making changes
which would make them more efficient and competitive. The
Navy and other services need your support to change this law.

We are here on a defense bill. This is what the Navy representative
testifying in front of the House said.

The Navy and other services need your support to change
this law and have FPI compete with private sector furniture
manufacturers under GSA contracts. Without this change, we
will not be serving sailors or taxpayers in the most
effective and efficient way.

We have had estimates now on the cost to the taxpayers that results
from this monopoly where Government agencies are forced to buy products
at higher than the lowest bid. The Deputy Commander of Defense
Logistics wrote in May 1996 that Federal Prison Industries had a 42
percent delinquency rate in its clothing and textile deliveries
compared to a 6 percent delinquency rate for commercial industry.
Now, for this record of poor performance--that is just the
performance statistics: 42 percent delinquency on Federal Prison
Industries versus 6 in the private sector--for this record of poor
performance, Federal Prison Industries charged prices that were an
average of 13 percent higher than commercial prices. And 5 years
earlier, the Department of Defense inspector general reached the same
conclusion, reporting that Federal Prison Industries contracts were
more expensive than contracts for comparable commercial products by an
average of 15 percent.

Since the Department of Defense bought about $150 million last year
from Federal Prison Industries, this overpricing is costing a lot of
money, and that is the issue here.
Now, the good Senator from Texas is correct, that this bill does not
address a problem that he sees. He would like to see Federal Prison
Industries be able to use prison labor at from 23 cents an hour to
$1.15 an hour with no medical benefits and no income tax, he would like
to see products produced by Federal prison labor out in the commercial
market, and he calls people that do not want to deal with that greedy.
I do not, any more than I think it is wrong to tell China that if they
want to produce products with prison labor, they are not going to be
able to use those products to displace American workers and American
businesses. I do not think that is wrong.
We have a fundamental difference on that issue. And he is sure right.
This bill does not reverse those laws because once you did that, you
would have businesses in this country going bankrupt in huge numbers
because they would have to be dealing with 23-cents-an-hour prison
labor. And we have decided as a people that that is not fair to
American business. It is not fair to American business either that even
though they can sell a product at a cheaper price to an American
Government agency, it will not be allowed to do so where Federal Prison
Industries has established a monopoly and asserted that monopoly for
that item. It can sell more cheaply and the odds are pretty good the
product will be better. The agency will want to buy it, but it is told,
sorry, you can't buy at less and frequently a better product because
Federal Prison Industries has decided to assert a monopoly in that
area.
There are areas where Federal Prison Industries can move. They have
been urged to do so. We have had meeting after meeting, forum after
forum, summit after summit with Federal Prison Industries. Of course,
you want to keep people in prison busy, but you have to keep them busy
in a way that is not unfairly and anticompetitively dealing with
American businesses.
And, by the way, that is why the Chamber of Commerce and the National
Federation of Independent Businesses and the National Association of
Manufacturers support this amendment. And that is why it has such
strong bipartisan support, cosponsored by Senators Abraham, Robb,
Helms, Kempthorne, Daschle, and Burns. It has bipartisan support
because this is a procurement issue. It is a competition issue. It is a
fundamental, commonsense, fairness issue that an American business
ought to be allowed to compete with Federal Prison Industries for sales
to its own Government.
If a commercial product is costing more than the prison product, that
may not be fair, but that is not touched by this amendment. This
amendment only goes to the cases where the commercial product is
cheaper than the Federal Prison Industries product.
Mr. President, it is time for the mandatory sourcing rule of Federal
Prison Industries, this monopoly that they assert, although their
products are more costly, to be changed. There is no better bill to
change it on than a defense bill since the Defense Department is the
biggest object of that monopoly. The testimony before the House
committee is clear that our service personnel are not being given the
products that they deserve--best quality, cheapest price--because of an
artificial monopoly which is allowed to exist.

It is not supposed to be this way, by the way. The theory of this
monopoly would be that if Federal Prison Industries can come in cheaper
than a commercial product, then it would be allowed to do so because of
the work which we want our prisoners to be engaged in. But it is being
abused. It is being abused. And when Federal Prison Industries asserts
that monopoly in cases where its prices, despite all of its advantages,
are higher than the commercial world, then they should not be allowed
to continue to deal with the business world and the workers of America
in that way.
Just this morning my staff received a telephone call from an
acquisition official at an agency that I am not going to name because I
do not want to get them in any trouble, but following last night's
debate this acquisition official

[[Page S7149]]

asked when this Federal Prison Industries amendment was likely to be
enacted. Of course, we do not know whether it will be enacted. But the
official explained that their agency was in the process of making a
substantial purchase of office furniture and was told that it would
have to buy it from Federal Prison Industries. They requested a waiver
from Federal Prison Industries. That request has been denied. The
agency in question has had a history of problems with Federal Prison
Industries, the official said. ``Quality, price, delivery, timing, you
name it.'' And when my staff explained that we do not know whether the
amendment would be enacted, much less when it would be enacted, the
official stated, ``Well, we would probably be willing to wait a few
months because we certainly don't want to get stuck with their stuff.''
Now, the good Senator talked about waivers, and that is fine. But we
ought to use the marketplace. He has frequently said, and I agree with
him, at least in most circumstances, that we ought to look to the
commercial world to provide us the best products at the cheapest
prices. We make an exception with prisoners because if they can produce
a product, even though it is cheaper, we say it is important that we
keep people working and we will allow that product, providing it is at
least no more expensive than the commercial product, we will then--that
was the intent--allow that product to be the one which is bought by our
Government.
And there is even some unfairness in that if you are in the business
trying to compete with that cheap labor. But what this amendment does
is simply say where the commercial product, despite all of those
advantages of 23 and 40 and 50 cents an hour and a dollar an hour labor
and none of the benefits and no income tax, despite all those benefits,
when an American business can produce a product more cheaply than
Federal Prison Industries, then surely it is unfair, anticompetitive
for that product to have to be bought from Federal Prison Industries.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. I will withhold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment offered by my friend,
Senator Levin, would devastate the function of the Federal Prison
Industries, Inc., 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 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.
FPI has no other outlet for its products than Federal agencies. The
constraints within which FPI operates, cause it to be less efficient
than it private sector counterparts. 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. 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 eighth
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 one-fourth 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-sufficient. 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 Federal Prison Industries preference in title 18 is essential if
this program is to prevent inmate idleness on a large scale. Increasing
Inmate idleness will risk unrest affecting the safety of prison
security personnel and the surrounding communities.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Levin amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to respond to Senator Levin's point.
I think he gave a great argument for price competition, but we are not
talking about price competition. Our dear colleague invokes the name of
business people and what they want. But let me remind anybody who is
objectively considering this debate, when I brought to the floor of the
Senate legislation to repeal three Depression-era laws that force us to
idle 1,100,000 prisoners who ought to be working 10 hours a day, 6 days
a week, to help pay the $20 billion cost of keeping them in prison,
American business and American labor were up in arms. They were up in
arms because they do not want prisoners to work.
I can tell you taxpayers want them to work. These special interest
groups that represent business and the union bosses in Washington, DC,
are against it, but the working people who are paying $20 billion a
year in taxes to keep people in prison want these prisoners to work. If
we held a national referendum on this issue, I believe by a 10-to-1
margin, Americans would say put these 1,100,000 basically young men to
work, have them produce things, do it in a way that you don't glut the
local market, do it to displace imports, do it to make component parts,
but put them to work to help pay the cost of keeping them in jail and
to acquire skills they can use when they get out.
So I would be, No. 1, more convinced by our colleague from Michigan
that these businesses are interested in competition if they weren't the
same people who were up here saying don't let prisoners produce
anything to sell in the marketplace. They don't want to compete. They
have already stopped competition. What they are trying to do is stop
the last prison inmate work being done in America, and this cannot be
allowed to happen.
In terms of displacing imports, if you try to that, as I did, you
find that it is prohibited by law and treaty. As remarkable as it
sounds to working Americans, it is criminal to make prisoners work to
produce anything of value which can be sold in the marketplace. In the
Depression, Congress passed a law that idled millions--well, it idled
hundreds of thousands of prisoners then. It now idles 1,100,000
prisoners. I would be a strong supporter of a provision that sought to
identify industries with high import penetration and allow prisoners to
make those products. But I would virtually guarantee that the same
people who are for this amendment would oppose that amendment. Because
basically, there is strong opposition among groups that feel they might
lose something to making people in prison work. It is very narrow in
its perspective, it is very shortsighted, but it clearly is out there.
As far as making prisoners work at 22 cents an hour, we are using the
profits from this industry to pay victims' restitution, to pay court-
ordered fines, and I think we have a right to make prisoners work. We
are paying, after all, their room and board. We are paying $22,000 a
year at the Federal level, not even counting building the prisons. I
would make them work for nothing, 10 hours a day, 6 days a week if that
is what it came down to. Actually it's more efficient to have a little
incentive pay and have them volunteer to work.
Let me go back to the central point of debate here, and let me read
from

[[Page S7150]]

the Office of Legislative Affairs of the Justice Department, Assistant
Attorney General:

The Federal Prison Industry is the Bureau of Prisons' most
important, efficient and cost-effective tool for managing
inmates. It keeps inmates productively occupied and reduces
inmate idleness and the violence and disruptive behavior
associated with it. Thus, it is essential to the security of
Federal prisons and the communities in which they are
located, and is essential to the safety of Bureau of Prison
staffs and inmates.

When we are talking about people and how they are affected, let me
give you some statistics. In the State of South Carolina--our
distinguished chairman here is from the State of South Carolina--for
those prisoners who have worked in prison industry, the probability
that when they get out they are going to commit a crime again and end
up back in prison is 2 percent. For those who have not worked in prison
industry it is 35 percent.

In the State of Florida the recidivism rate, people coming back to
prison who have worked in prison industries, is 11 percent; it is 26.7
percent for people who have not worked in prison, not acquired a work
ethic, not acquired any skills. In Wisconsin it is 11 percent for
people that worked in prison industries, it is 22 percent for those who
did not. In Kentucky 36 percent come back to prison versus 65 percent
who do not work in Federal Prison Industries.
So, if we are talking about price competition let's have it. Let's
amend this amendment and say that we are going to let prison labor work
in any area, say, that has at least a 30-percent import penetration.
That would include automobiles, it would include a lot of industries.
And let's put 1.1 million people to work and let's set a goal: Within
10 years they are going to pay the full cost of being in prison by
working. Let's turn our prisons into industrial parks. Let's have it so
that industries are lining up to hire people when they are getting out
of prison. That's what America needs. That's what we ought to be doing.
Every year, I have a dear colleague who offers an amendment barring
trade with countries that use prison labor. And every year I wonder why
we can't make our prisoners work. They would benefit from it. We would
benefit from it. But what we are talking about here is killing off the
last vestige of prison labor. We don't let them produce anything that
can be sold, we simply let them work and produce things for the
Government.
There is a variance between what our colleague says and at least what
the Federal Prison Industries report in their published data. One of
the things that I intend to do is offer a second-degree amendment to
have a study, so we actually know the facts. But here is what they say:

During fiscal year 1996 [the most recent year where we have
complete data] Federal Prison Industries received more than
$446 million worth of waiver requests.

These are from agencies which did not want to buy things from
prisons. They wanted a waiver to go out and buy it in the private
sector of the economy.

Ninety-two percent of these proposed waivers were granted,
resulting in $410 million reallocation of Federal prison
business to the private sector.

The law clearly says that prison industries have to meet quality
requirements, have to meet the price set by the Government as a
competitive price. If there is a problem there, let's fix it. But we
cannot claim we are for competition when we don't let prisoners, as a
matter of law, produce something of value and sell it on the public
market. I just simply say when, in South Carolina, making prisoners
work contributes to a dramatic drop from 35 percent who go back to
prison to 2 percent going back to prison, I think it is worth something
making these people work. If we have them work and we pay victims'
restitution, is that not of some value? If they acquire skills, is that
not of some value?
So, I would just like to conclude by saying what a great tragedy it
is that here we are debating ending prison labor rather than debating
expanding it. Component parts that are now made all around the world
ought to be made in Federal and State prisons. We ought to be working
these people 10 hours a day, providing them a little incentive pay so
they can get little extras and using the rest of the money to pay for
victim restitution, court ordered fines and to help pay the $20 billion
a year the taxpayers are paying to keep people in prison. But, instead,
we are debating a proposal to end prison labor for all practical
purposes by taking away their Government business.
When you are dealing with prisoners, as the Senator from South
Carolina said, it is a completely different structure because you have
to supervise what they are doing, you have security requirements, and
as a matter of principle, the prison industry has to be operated
inefficiently because we have hundreds of provisions that limit their
ability to do anything, to be in any way competitive with the private
sector.
We require them to use the lowest technology, because we have far
more workers than we have work, because of law that prevents people
from working. So they are using, basically, hand labor because we are
trying to work as many as we can. We could fix this by repealing
existing laws.
I would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry. Would it be in
order for me to submit an amendment to the Levin amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the amendment of the
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone].
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside that
amendment temporarily so that I might offer a second-degree amendment
to the Levin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.

Amendment No. 794 to Amendment No. 778

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment
numbered 794 to amendment No. 778.

Mr. GRAMM. 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:

Strike all in amendment No. 778 and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
``The Department of Defense and Federal Prison Industries
shall conduct jointly a study of existing procurement
procedure regulations, and statutes which now govern
procurement transactions between the Department of Defense
and Federal Prison Industries.
``A report describing the findings of the study and
containing recommendations on the means to improve the
efficiency and reduce the costs of such transactions shall be
submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services no
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
act.''

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, what this amendment does, very simply, is
it mandates that the Federal Prison Industries, jointly with the
Department of Defense, conduct a study of our whole procurement system,
as it relates to Federal Prison Industries and the Defense Department,
to look at how competitive the system is, how we can make it more
competitive, how we can make it more efficient and, basically,
ascertain the facts.
If we listen to Senator Levin, prisons are noncompetitive, producing
low-quality material at inflated prices. But yet, when we look at data
provided by the Justice Department, in 92 percent of the cases where
people have said we don't want to buy this product, they have granted
the waiver to bypass Federal Prison Industries and buy in the private
sector.
Somewhere there is a disconnect over the facts. I always try to teach
my children to argue about principles and theory, don't argue about
facts. I don't know what the facts are. I know what the Bureau of
Prisons says. I know what Senator Levin says. I have great respect for
both, but they don't quite agree. One of the things the study would do
is to allow us to look at it, to acquire information and to try to
bring together all of the factors that we have to decide here.
This is a tough issue. Let me say to Senator Levin that I don't think
there is a Member of the Senate who has a stronger record in supporting
competition, privatization, and price competitiveness than I. Maybe
there is, but I don't think so.
This is a criminal justice issue. It is not as if we have 1.1 million
people

[[Page S7151]]

here who can go off and do something else. We have them locked up in
prison, and they are sitting there idle costing us $22,000 a year
apiece to keep in prison. If we can have them work and get some value
out of it in victim's restitution, in training, any assistance we get
in paying for their incarceration, I view that as God's work and
something that I want to do.
Obviously, in any argument, there is another side to it, and the
other side here is the people who would rather have the business that
prisoners are doing. But I simply remind my colleagues, and we probably
have overdebated this issue, but I remind my colleagues that we have
1.1 million people in prison. We are spending billions of dollars to
keep them there, and because of our existing laws, they are basically
in idleness.
This is a dangerous situation, and I think when you are dealing with
this kind of situation, you can't simply say we are not going to let
them compete in any other area but we are going to make them compete
for Government business. Government work is all they are allowed under
law to do.
So if we are going to change this, we better understand what we are
doing, because I would hate to see a situation where, in South
Carolina, people who are working in prison, only 2 percent of them come
back to prison when they get out; 35 percent of them come back to
prison who don't work. When we are talking about compassion and
concern, remember these people who are coming back to prison are people
who have killed people and robbed people and molested people. I think
this is a very important issue. I think my amendment allows us to get
the facts and make a rational decision. I hope my colleagues will
support this amendment. I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas made a number of
points, and one of them particularly I want to comment on. He said,
``If there is a problem of the price not being competitive, then let's
adjust it.'' That is this amendment. That is exactly what this
amendment does. There is a problem, and the problem is that even when
the price of the prison product is more than the commercial product,
that is, noncompetitive, nonetheless, Federal Prison Industries can
direct the purchase.
So the problem, which was identified with the ``if'' word by my
friend from Texas, is the problem which this amendment addresses. I
don't know why any of us need a study on the principle involved here.
The principle involved is a pretty direct, simple principle. If the
commercial product is cheaper than the prison-made product, then don't
stick the taxpayers with the extra cost and don't cause the private
business person out of prison the loss of that sale. That is the
principle. If that is true 10 percent of the time or 15 percent of the
time or 5 percent of the time, it is the same principle. And that is
the principle we will be voting on: Whether or not we want to have a
study to see how often the principle is violated, or whether or not we
want to vote for the principle, and it is the principle which is
driving this amendment.

I have a letter from a citizen of Texas:

I am writing in regards to reforming Federal Prison
Industries and ending its mandatory source status. I am a
business person and a resident of San Antonio, TX. Not only
do I reside in the heart of Texas, but also in the heart of
military bases. It is virtually impossible for me to make a
living due to the mandatory status implemented by the Federal
Prison Industries. I urge you to support and follow Senator
Carl Levin and his legislation that would allow businesses to
compete with FPI for Federal contracts.

Those are the keywords. You can put them in bright lights: ``Allow
them to compete.'' That is the principle.
She goes on:

Today, we are prohibited from doing so. If a product is
made by a Federal prison, then Federal agencies are forced to
buy that product. It would also help Government agencies by
allowing them to compare price and quality from a broader
array of sources.

That is the principle. Mr. President, our good friend from Texas said
that he is sure the American people, by at least a vote of 10 to 1,
would want our prisoners to work. I think it is much more than that. I
hope it would be 100 to 1. But I think it would be 1,000 to 1 that
people want our Government to buy the products at the best price. That
is the discipline of the marketplace. That is what a free enterprise
economy should be about.
Do we make an exception to that rule when it comes to certain
products that are made by slave labor in other countries? Yes. Have we
made an exception for saying it is unfair to American business that
prison-made products in America should not compete in the commercial
world? When the Senator from Texas says that he would like to turn
prisons into industrial parks, is that fair to Americans who are not in
prison who need more than 20 or 30 or 40 cents an hour to survive? Is
that really fair? I don't think so, and this amendment, he is surely
right, does not reverse the prohibition on that. But all this amendment
does is to allow the private sector to compete when its price is lower.
It is not going to destroy or devastate the Federal Prison
Industries. It is going to force them to be producing things where they
can do it price competitively with all the advantages they have, and
there are many things that they can sell to the Government which fall
in that category. There are areas of recycling where we do not now
recycle because the cost of labor is so high it does not pay to
recycle. Prison labor is a very good source of potential labor for
that.
There are things that Government buys that are important--and I
emphasize that the Government buys that are important--where prison
labor would not be displacing American businesses and where, indeed, it
would make good sense and would be fair for those products to be
produced and bought by the U.S. Government.
All we are doing is implementing the very principle which the Senator
from Texas said: ``If there's a problem now with prices not being
competitive, let's adjust it.'' That is this amendment. That is all we
are doing, we are adjusting it. We are saying, let American Government
agencies buy products from American businesses when they can do so more
cheaply than the product that they are now being forced to buy too
often by the Federal Prison Industries.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 795

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to
settle and pay claims by members of the Armed Forces for loss of
personal property due to flooding in the Red River Basin)

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I send an amendment to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is currently pending a first- and
second-degree amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
amendments that are currently pending so the amendment that I am
offering can be considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself,
Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Daschle,
proposes an amendment numbered 795.

Mr. CONRAD. 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 title X, add the following:

SEC. . CLAIMS BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FOR LOSS OF
PERSONAL PROPERTY DUE TO FLOODING IN THE RED
RIVER BASIN.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The flooding that occurred in the portion of the Red
River Basin encompassing East Grand Forks, Minnesota, and
Grand Forks, North Dakota, during April and May 1997 is the
worst flooding to occur in that region in the last 500 years.
(2) Over 700 military personnel stationed in the vicinity
of Grand Forks Air Force Base reside in that portion of the
Red River Basin.
(3) The military personnel stationed in the vicinity of
Grand Forks Air Force Base have been stationed there entirely
for the convenience of the Government.
(4) There is insufficient military family housing at Grand
Forks Air Force Base for all of those military personnel, and
the available off-base housing is almost entirely within the
areas adversely affected by the flood.

[[Page S7152]]

(5) Many of the military personnel have suffered
catastrophic losses, including total losses of personal
property by some of the personnel.
(6) It is vital to the national security interests of the
United States that the military personnel adversely affected
by the flood recover as quickly and completely as possible.
(b) Authorization.--The Secretary of the military
department concerned may pay claims for loss and damage to
personal property suffered as a direct result of the flooding
in the Red River Basin during April and May 1997, by members
of the Armed Forces residing in the vicinity of Grand Forks
Air Force Base, North Dakota, without regard to the
provisions of section 3721(e) of title 31, United States
Code.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering today is
intended to prevent unintended discrimination against personnel at the
Grand Forks Air Force Base as the Air Force provides compensation for
damages suffered by personnel as a result of this spring's
unprecedented flooding.
I am joined in this amendment by Senators Dorgan, Wellstone, Johnson,
and Daschle. This is an amendment that has been requested by the U.S.
Air Force, specifically by Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall; General
Fogleman, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force; and Gen. Walter Kross,
the commander in chief of the U.S. Transportation Command.
By way of background, Mr. President, North Dakota and Minnesota, as
the distinguished occupant of the chair knows well, have suffered from
one of the worst winters and spring in our history. The flood that
caused the evacuation of both Grand Forks and East Grand Forks was a
500-year flood and caused literally billions of dollars of damage.
This picture shows some of the remnants of what we dealt with in that
devastating flood. As I have indicated before, if you went up and down
the streets of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks immediately after the
flood, what you saw was stacks and stacks of everybody's personal
property. All of the carpeting, all of the clothing, all of the
draperies and appliances, whether it was washers or dryers or
refrigerators, they were all out on the curb. You could see what
everybody had, because of this devastating flood.
In the midst of the flood, of course, we also had this incredible
fire break out in downtown Grand Forks. Here you can see a picture of
some military personnel helping out as the firefighters fought this
devastating fire and, of course, the flood simultaneously. This last
picture shows one of the neighborhoods just a few blocks from where the
fire hit, and you can see these cars and trucks inundated with water in
a neighborhood that was especially hard hit.
Well, Mr. President, the point is, we suffered one of the worst
floods ever, worst in 500 years.
In the face of this, there was great assistance from Air Force base
personnel. And they themselves experienced great devastation. Those
that did not live on the base, who were forced to live off base because
of a housing shortage on the base, are now faced with a Catch-22,
because current law allows the Defense Department to provide
compensation for personal property losses of up to $100,000 as long as
the housing that those Air Force personnel were occupying are
Government owned.
Unfortunately, about 700 families lived in housing that was off the
base in the area most devastated but do not live in Government-owned
housing. And their personal property losses can be dealt with by other
Government programs, but to the extent they do not cover them, these
people are left in the remarkable situation of not being covered. The
people on the base, where frankly there was not flooding, they are
covered. But the people who are off base who did experience enormous
losses are not covered.
That is why the top Air Force personnel have asked that we offer this
amendment and that we ask our colleagues to pass it so that military
personnel are not discriminated against in this very odd way.
Mr. President, I say, many of these individuals who were helping to
fight the flood and helping to fight the fire were doing it when their
own homes were being destroyed. This was truly an act of courage and
heroism by these Air Force personnel. And now they find themselves in a
circumstance in which those that were on base, they can be helped by an
existing Federal program, but those who are off base in the area that
was actually hit by the devastating floods cannot be helped. That does
not make sense. It is not fair. And we have a chance to correct it.
The amendment that I have offered today will, No. 1, waive the
discriminatory provision for the purposes of the recent disaster. No.
2, it does not require any new money. I want to make that point very
clear. This can be accommodated, according to the Air Force, out of
existing programs. And there is sufficient money there to address this
circumstance. It does not require any new money.
The Air Force put the potential liability at $4 million--not billion.
We often talk on the floor here of billions of dollars. But this is a
very small item, $4 million. And it would be consistent with earlier
actions taken by the Congress after Hurricane Andrew in 1992 on behalf
of Homestead Air Force Base personnel living off the base.
I again would like to emphasize that this provision has been
explicitly requested by General Kross, the Commander in Chief of the
U.S. Transportation Command; it has also been requested by General
Fogleman, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, and by the Air
Force Secretary, Secretary Widnall.
I hope that my colleagues will see fit to approve this amendment. It
is a relatively minor matter in the scheme of things around here. But
it will make a significant difference in the lives of these Air Force
personnel who were really courageous and heroic in the face of these
disasters, and they deserve to be covered just as those who were on
base are already covered.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I just have one question to my dear friend
from North Dakota.
Is it the intention of this amendment that if the person who was
victimized by the flood or fire had personal insurance, that that
personal insurance be first exhausted and then any Federal FEMA
benefits or other benefits then be next exhausted prior to the kicking
in of this particular language that the Senator is offering?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to respond to my colleague from Michigan.
It is my understanding that the way this program works, first of all,
all personal insurance benefits have to be exhausted, then all other
Federal program benefits have to be exhausted, that is, if there is any
eligibility for FEMA benefits, those have to be exhausted before this
program is available to be administered by the Air Force.
As I say, that is my understanding of how the program works. I think
that is a reasonable way for it to work because obviously we do not
want to be expending Federal dollars where private insurance covers the
loss or where other Federal programs cover the loss.
The concern that the Air Force has had is they face circumstances
here in both North Dakota and Minnesota, by the way, where Air Force
base personnel were forced to live off base because of a housing
shortage on the base. And those personnel were subjected to this
devastating series of circumstances, some of them in North Dakota, some
of them in Minnesota. And the Air Force would very much like to be able
to compensate them for personal property losses over and above what the
insurance will cover, over and above what other Federal programs will
cover.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for his amendment.
I know that Senator Cleland, were he here--he is the ranking member
of our subcommittee--would be supporting this amendment, as do I. I
think however there will be some debate on this amendment. But from the
perspective of at least this Member, it is a good amendment, an
equitable amendment. It uses the same program that applies to people
who are on base to those who are off base, almost all of whom were
assigned to that base.

[[Page S7153]]

Mr. CONRAD. I want to, if I can, thank my colleague from Michigan, to
say then that this is consistent with what we did after Hurricane
Andrew with respect to Homestead Air Force Base personnel, and that the
top Air Force officials have been in frequent contact with me on this
matter. They think it is a matter of equitable treatment for their
forces and that it is important that we take this action.
I very much hope that my colleagues will see fit to honor the call of
our top Air Force leadership and pass this amendment.
I thank the Chair. And I thank my colleague from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I hope that if we do adopt this amendment
that the Defense Department would look within it the two precedents in
terms of establishing a general policy situation such as this. It seems
to me that the precedent cited by the Senator from North Dakota is in
point, and that this would be an additional precedent, if passed, for
adopting a general policy in situations such as this for persons who
are assigned to a base but who live off base to be given the same kind
of coverage as persons who are on base.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, again, on this side there is support for
the Senator's amendment. And I know of no opposition on this side. I
hope this amendment will be adopted.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have agreed to accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 795) was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I especially want
to thank the ranking member, Senator Levin, from Michigan for his
assistance. And I also thank very much the chairman of our committee,
Senator Thurmond of South Carolina. I thank them both for their
support.
I think this is a matter of equity for our Armed Forces personnel. I
know they will very much appreciate this assistance.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on that
amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 593

(Purpose: To repeal the restriction on use of Department of Defense
facilities for abortions)

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 593 and ask to
proceed under the previous agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Robb, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Wyden,
proposes an amendment numbered 593.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of title VII add the following:

SEC. 708. RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS POLICY REGARDING
RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MEDICAL FACILITIES.

Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out subsection (b); and
(2) in subsection (a), by striking out ``(a) Restriction of
Use of Funds.--''.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself,
Senator Snowe, Senator Kennedy, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Robb, and
Senator Wyden.
Mr. President, this bipartisan amendment simply strikes the existing
ban on privately funded abortions in overseas military hospitals for
military personnel and dependents. For the information of my
colleagues, it is identical to the amendment that I offered last
Congress which was adopted by the Senate.
Mr. President, it is extremely amazing to me that today a woman who
volunteers to serve our country and is stationed overseas surrenders
her ability to receive a safe and legal abortion without unnecessary
and intrusive obstacles.
Not only are female military personnel denied this basic reproductive
health service, but so are dependents of military personnel.
Mr. President, I know that my colleagues share my concerns regarding
current allegations of sexual harassment against women in the military.
We all agree this is intolerable and cannot and will not be accepted.
We are all committed to protecting women from sexual harassment or
discrimination while serving in the military. We all recognize that
serving one's country does not mean sacrificing one's civil and
constitutional rights.
While the military may have a separate code of conduct, basic civil
rights are afforded all military personnel. It is important for me to
stress this to my colleagues. No Senator would come to the floor to
support any legislation that eliminated constitutional guarantees for
military personnel. However, that is exactly what happens today unless
we lift the current ban on access to safe and legal abortion services
for military personnel serving overseas.
In 1993, the ban on privately funded abortion services for military
personnel and independents was lifted, restoring basic health care
protection to all women serving overseas. Unfortunately, in the 1996
Department of Defense Authorization Act, this ban was reinstated. I was
at a loss then and I still am today as to what the justification is for
this ban.
I have heard supporters of the ban talk about the use of Federal
funds to provide abortion-related services. Mr. President, this
argument is weak at best. My amendment would require that personal
funds be used. The cost to the patient to provide abortion services far
exceed the cost of the procedure itself.
Mr. President, without my amendment, we subject women to undue
hardships when they serve overseas. If a woman serving overseas cannot
obtain a legal and safe abortion at her own expense, she must request
leave from her commanding officer to fly back to the United States for
this procedure. We should be outraged at the cost to the military for
transporting her back to the United States and for the leave time that
must be granted. Why is it better to pay for these costs than simply to
have the woman pay for the procedure at her own expense at a safe U.S.
military hospital?
Based on this fact, the argument that it costs Federal tax dollars to
provide abortion-related services to military personnel cannot be the
issue. Today, it takes more tax dollars to provide a safe and legal
abortion for military personnel than it would under my amendment. If
anyone is concerned about Federal tax dollars funding abortion, they
should support my amendment, as it would require the woman to pay for
the procedure with private funds where she is stationed rather than
flying her home to the United States.
Supporters of the ban may also claim that military medical personnel
should not be trained to perform or counsel on abortion-related
services. I remind my colleagues, however, current law provides
coverage for abortions in the case of rape, incest, or to protect the
life of the woman. Doctors must now be trained, regardless of what
happens here today.
Let me respond as well to statements that insist that this amendment
would require any doctor to perform an elective abortion, regardless of
their own personal objections. This amendment does not change or impact
current DOD policy which clearly spells out that health care providers
who, as a matter of conscience or moral principle, do not wish to
perform elective abortions, shall not be required to do so. The DOD

[[Page S7154]]

policy and the conscience clause enforced by all four branches of the
service have worked. There have been no reported cases of a military
doctor being forced to perform an elective abortion despite their moral
or ethical objections.

Mr. President, like all of our service personnel, women in the
military deserve our utmost respect, honor, and gratitude. They
certainly do not deserve to be told that they must check their
constitutional rights at the door when they are stationed overseas.
This amendment protects their precious rights and ensures their safe
access to quality medical services.
Like all military personnel, women should be guaranteed access to
quality and safe medical services. The current ban on abortion services
at DOD facilities could force women to seek unsafe, back-alley
abortions in a foreign country. Without adequate care, an abortion can
be life-threatening or permanently disabling.
Mr. President, we often have Members come to the floor to advocate
for women's health issues. I remind my colleagues that forcing a woman
to delay an abortion could further jeopardize her health. Every week a
woman has to wait increases the health risks. It is simply wrong to
jeopardize the health and well-being of our military personnel.
I urge my colleagues to support the Murray-Snowe amendment and to
give every woman in the military the same rights, the same rights, that
are afforded every other American woman. This is our chance to show
women in the military and dependents serving overseas that we do care
and that we appreciate their contributions to protecting our national
security.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield whatever time the Senator from
Idaho desires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. President, I am the new chairman of the Military Personnel
Subcommittee, and in the 12 months I have served in that capacity I
have learned the subcommittee itself cuts a wide swath on all the
issues that we deal with. This subcommittee resolves issues that are at
the forefront of our national debate. We cope with the issues of values
taught to our young people who volunteer for the armed services. We
deal with the issues involving gender-based training, sexual harassment
in the workplace, drug and alcohol abuse, and now, as a result of this
amendment before the Senate, the very sensitive issue of abortion.
I make it very clear at the outset what this issue in this particular
amendment is not about. It is not about whether you are pro-life or
pro-choice. This amendment is about where those abortions may be
performed and whether they are paid for at Federal Government expense.
This amendment would repeal the prohibition on using Department of
Defense facilities for abortions and allow prepaid abortions to be
performed in these taxpayer-funded facilities and by Federal medical
personnel at these facilities.
The sponsors of this amendment argue that without this amendment,
women in the Armed Forces stationed overseas may find it difficult to
have access to a safe abortion. As a result, this interferes with their
constitutional right to an abortion, so they contend.
I want to acknowledge that women who are in the Armed Forces and are
stationed overseas in countries where abortion is not legal, are faced
with complex emotional and difficult decisions. I note for the record,
however, that a woman with a pregnancy who is in the armed services who
is overseas and that pregnancy is medically life-threatening or the
result of rape or incest, under current policy, can receive an abortion
at a U.S. military hospital.
So the issue before the Senate is, what is the right abortion policy
that our military hospitals should follow in cases where the life of
the mother is not at stake or rape and incest is not involved?
After reading last year's debate and listening to the debate today, I
offer these observations. While women in this country still have a
constitutional right to have abortions, our national policy as a result
of the Hyde amendment is that taxpayers should not be required to pay
for abortions except in the circumstance where the life of the mother
is at risk or in instances of rape and incest. In other words, except
in rare instances, Federal funds should not pay for abortions.
But there is no getting around the fact that the Department of
Defense military hospitals are paid with 100 percent taxpayer dollars.
The medical facility is paid for with taxpayer money. The doctors and
the nurses are Federal employees, paid with taxpayer dollars. So is the
equipment, the overhead, the operating rooms, et cetera.
Even though the pending amendment contemplates that women will be
allowed to use personal funds to pay for an abortion, there is no
getting around the fact that taxpayer dollars could still directly or
indirectly pay for an abortion. So this amendment, if adopted, could
lead to situations where taxpayers are paying for abortions, which is
contrary to our national policy as outlined in the Hyde amendment. That
is inconsistent with our national policy and with my personal belief,
and therefore I oppose the pending amendment for those reasons.

Mr. President, like so many issues this subcommittee handles, this
one is one of the sensitive ones. I want to commend the Senator from
Indiana, who had been the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel for a number of years, who has dealt in a sensitive fashion
with this issue in the past. I appreciate the approach that he has
taken. I look forward to his comments as he gives us insight on this
particular issue.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield myself a couple of minutes.
I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Idaho, chairman of
the Personnel Subcommittee. This is not an easy issue to deal with. We
have dealt with it on numerous occasions here on the Senate floor. We
are attempting to maintain a consistent Federal policy relative to
abortion. That policy, known as the Hyde amendment, essentially says
that taxpayers' money should not be used against the wishes of
taxpayers for elective abortions except in some very, very limited
circumstances. Separation of that has been accepted on a consensus, at
least a majority, basis now for a couple of decades. We are trying to
maintain that. We do not want to make an exception in this instance
because we do not think an exception needs to be made.
There has been no demonstration that women who find themselves with
unwanted pregnancies in the military are denied the right to have an
abortion. They have that right. They can exercise that right. We are
simply saying we do not think we should compel the American taxpayer to
pay for it. That is something that has been the subject of debate and
discussion ever since I've been in Congress and even before that. By a
majority vote, time after time after time, upheld by this Congress, we
have disallowed the use of Federal funds for abortions except in cases
where the life of the mother is threatened or in cases of rape or
incest. We are trying to maintain that standard, consistent throughout
all Federal agencies, including the military.
In one sense, really, in a very real sense, this is a solution, this
amendment offered by the Senator from Washington is a solution in
search of a problem. We simply have not had any problems with allowing
women to obtain abortions at the place of station if it is allowable in
that country, and if it is not allowable in that country overseas, to
find military transport, not at their cost, but military transport back
to any place in the United States that they choose for the performance
of that particular abortion.
In doing so, we allow the woman to exercise--even though it is not a
right, I agree--a right guaranteed by the Supreme Court at this
particular time, and she is not denied the opportunity to have an
abortion. The question before the Senate is, will we maintain a
consistent policy that says that taxpayers' money should not be used if
it goes against their moral beliefs, their religious beliefs?
Taxpayers' money should not be used for the performance of elective
abortions except in very limited circumstances.
I yield back, reserving the time.

[[Page S7155]]

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield such time as she may consume to
my cosponsor, the Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.
I want to thank the Senator from Washington for taking the initiative
and leadership in offering this amendment to the DOD authorization bill
because it is a very important issue. I remind this body that we voted
to repeal this ban on abortions in military hospitals overseas last
year, and I hope my colleagues would do the same again this year.
Mr. President, year after year, debate after debate, Congress
revisits the issues concerning women's reproductive freedoms by seeking
to restrict, limit, and eliminate a woman's right to choose. This ban
on abortions in overseas military hospitals, reinstated last year,
represents just more of the same.
I point out that these efforts to turn back the clock on women's
reproductive rights will never erase the fact that the highest Court in
the land reaffirmed, time after time, in decision after decision, a
woman's fundamental right to a safe and legal abortion.
This whole issue of banning abortions in overseas military hospitals
represents another frontal assault on a woman's right to choose. It
also represents a frontal assault on a woman's dignity. This ban denies
a woman's right to choose for female military personnel and their
dependents. It denies those women, who have voluntarily decided to
serve their country in the Armed Forces, a safe and legal medical
procedure. Because they were assigned to duty in other countries, it
denies them equal protection under the law. What kind of reward is that
for a woman who has made a decision to serve her country but denying
her the rights that are guaranteed to her under the Constitution?
It certainly didn't occur to me that women's constitutional rights
were territorial. It certainly didn't occur to me that American women,
when they go abroad serving our country, are leaving their
constitutional rights behind. Between 1979 and 1988, women could use
their own personal funds to pay for the medical care that they needed.
And in 1988, we know that the Reagan administration announced a new
policy prohibiting the performance of any abortions at military
hospitals--even if that procedure was paid for by a woman's personal
funds.
In January 1993, President Clinton issued an Executive order removing
that prohibition. But the point is that that Executive order did not
change existing law in prohibiting the use of Federal funds to pay for
that procedure. That is the issue here today. The issue isn't whether
or not we are going to use Federal funds for abortions in overseas
military hospitals; it is a question of whether or not a woman is
entitled to have access to a safe, legal, and constitutional medical
procedure with the use of her own personal funds.
Removing this ban doesn't require medical providers to perform
abortions. All three branches of Government have a conscience clause.
It would not require medical personnel to perform that procedure if
they have moral, religious, or ethical objections to doing so, and that
is reasonable. But the ban prohibiting women from having access to the
right to choose with her own personal funds is creating a level of
substandard care.
What kind of choice does a woman have who is serving her country
overseas? What are her choices? To fly back to the United States? Well,
we know the cost involved, let alone whether or not she would have the
time in order to do so. She could possibly endanger her own health by
seeking care in some of the foreign hospitals, whose quality of care
cannot compare to ours. That is why we have our own separate medical
facilities on military installations abroad. That is the whole point:
to ensure that our military personnel have the best quality care
available that they are entitled to and indeed that they deserve. Or we
could require a woman to fly to another country to receive care. But
the bottom line is that what we are imposing on a woman who serves in
the military are some very dangerous and stark choices.
Mr. President, the Supreme Court, in 1992, in a case called Planned
Parenthood versus Casey, said that the Government regulation of
abortion may not constitute an undue burden on the right to choose. An
undue burden is defined as having the ``purpose or effect of placing a
substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.'' When
you consider the hurdles that a military woman seeking abortion faces--
lengthy travel, serious delay, high cost to fly home, or elsewhere,
substandard medical care and options--there is no doubt that this ban
unconstitutionally places an undue burden on a woman's right to choose;
but, most important, prohibiting women from using their own funds to
obtain abortion services at overseas military hospitals endangers their
health. That is the jeopardy in which we are placing women, because in
being stationed overseas there are often areas where local facilities
are inadequate or provide substandard care and just do not meet the
standards that our medical facilities do. That is the purpose of having
them there.
So this isn't a question of funding, it's a question of fairness,
it's a question of whether or not the Government is going to dictate
the kind of care a woman and her family will have access to if they are
serving abroad in the military. It is not an issue of pro-life versus
pro-choice; it's a question of whether or not we are going to create a
disparate and discriminatory policy when it comes to a woman using her
own personal funds. That is what this debate is all about.
It is an unprecedented intrusion on the part of Government to say how
an individual can spend their private funds when it comes to a legal,
constitutional medical procedure.
The amendment that is offered by the Senator from Washington will
ensure and, indeed, safeguard us from creating a two-tiered system in
this country--one for a woman who reside in the United States and
serves in the military and another for those women who choose to serve
their country in the Armed Forces overseas. I hope that this body will
reject the ban that is included in the DOD authorization and accept the
amendment that has been offered here today by Senator Murray, because
failure to do otherwise is punitive for American women and for their
families. I hope that we will follow the example that we established in
the last Congress by voting to repeal the ban.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support Senator Murray's amendment
to repeal the provision of current law that prohibits a woman in the
armed services from using her own funds to pay for an abortion in an
overseas U.S. military facility. I support this amendment for several
reasons.
First, under several Supreme Court decisions, a woman clearly has a
right to choose. A woman does not give up that right or it is not
obliterated because she serves in the U.S. military or is married to a
U.S. servicemember.
Second, women based in the United States and using a military
facility in this country are not prohibited from using their own funds
to pay for an abortion. Barring the use of U.S. military facilities
overseas creates a double standard for military women and an undue
hardship on women servicemembers stationed overseas.
Third, women may not have ready access to private facilities in other
countries. Abortion is illegal in some foreign countries, like the
Philippines. A woman stationed in that country or the spouse of a
servicemember would need to fly to the United States or to another
country--at her own expense--to obtain an abortion. Most servicemembers
cannot easily bear the expense of jetting off to Switzerland for
medical treatment.
Fourth, if women do not have access to military facilities or to
private facilities in the country where they are stationed, they could
endanger their own health by the time it takes to get to a facility in
another country or by being forced to get treatment by someone other
than a licensed physician.
We know from personal experience in this country that when abortion
is illegal, desperate women resort to unsafe and life-threatening
methods. If it were your wife, or your daughter, would you want her in
the hands of an untrained, unknown person on the back streets of Manila
or Cordoba, Argentina? Or would you prefer that she be treated by a
trained physician in a U.S. military facility?
These women would have to put themselves at great risk by the
obstacles involved, by the possibility of

[[Page S7156]]

using an untrained, unlicensed person and sometimes by a lack of
knowledge of the seriousness of their condition.
People who serve our country agree to put their lives at risk to
defend their country. They do not agree to put their health at risk
with unknown medical facilities that may not meet U.S. standards. With
this ban, we are asking these women to risk their lives doublefold.
Current law does not force any military physician to perform an
abortion against his or her will. All branches have a conscience clause
that permits medical personnel to choose not to perform the procedure.
What we are talking about today is providing equal access to U.S.
military medical facilities, wherever they are located, for a legal
procedure paid for with one's own money.
Abortion is legal for American women. To deny American military women
access to medical treatment they can trust is wrong. I urge my
colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly urge the Senate to support the
amendment offered by Senator Murray. This provision would take the long
overdue step of repealing the current ban on privately funded abortions
at U.S. military facilities abroad. This measure will ensure that women
in the Armed Forces serving overseas can exercise their
constitutionally guaranteed right to choose safe abortion services.
This is an issue of fairness to the women who make significant
sacrifices to serve the Nation. They are assigned to military bases
around the world to protect our freedoms, and they serve with great
distinction. But when they get there, they are denied access to the
kind of medical care available to all women in the United States.
Military women should be able to depend on their base hospitals for all
their medical services. This amendment gives them access to the same
range and quality of health care services that they could obtain in the
United States.
It is not fair for Congress to force women who serve the Nation
overseas to face the choice of accepting medical care that may be below
the quality they can obtain in the United States, or else returning to
the United States for care in a nonmilitary facility. Without a
sufficient level of care, abortion can be a life-threatening or
permanently disabling procedure. This danger is an unacceptable burden
for us to impose on the Nation's servicewomen.
Congress has a responsibility to provide safe options in these
situations. Opponents of this amendment are exposing servicewomen to
substantial risks of infection, illness, infertility, and even death.
The amendment does not ask that these procedures be paid for with
Federal funds. It simply asks that the appropriate care be made
available. It is the only responsible thing to do.
In addition to the health risks of the current policy, there is a
significant financial penalty on servicewomen and their families who
have arrived at the difficult conclusion to seek an abortion. The cost
of returning to the United States from far-off bases in other parts of
the world to obtain adequate health care can often involve significant
financial hardship for young enlisted women. Yet, this is a cost that
servicewomen based in the United States do not have to bear, since
nonmilitary facilities are readily available.
If our military personnel do not have the financial means to travel
privately to the United States for an abortion, they will face
significant delays waiting for military transportation. The health
risks increase each week, and if the delays in military flights are
long, the women may well be forced to rely on questionable medical
facilities in their host countries. As a practical matter, women in
uniform are being denied their constitutionally protected right to
choose.
A women's decision on abortion is a very difficult and extremely
personal one. It is unfair to increase the burden on the women who
proudly serve our country overseas.
Every woman in America has a constitutionally guaranteed right to
choose to terminate her pregnancy. It is time for Congress to stop
denying this right to military women serving abroad. It is time for
Congress to stop treating these women as second-class citizens. I urge
the Senate to support the Murray amendment and end this flagrant
injustice under current law.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues Senators
Murray and Snowe in sponsoring this amendment to allow women serving in
the U.S. military overseas and dependents of U.S. military personnel
serving overseas to obtain privately funded abortions at overseas
military hospitals.
Women serving overseas are fighting to protect democracy and freedom.
These women should not be denied the basic, constitutionally protected
rights enjoyed by women in the United States. One of those rights is
the right to make decisions regarding one's personal reproductive
health.
This amendment repeals a ban that was put in place during the 104th
Congress. That ban unnecessarily endangers the health of U.S.
servicewomen and the dependents of service personnel overseas, and
creates an additional and unnecessary hazard to military service for
women in this country. This is unconscionable.
It is important to remember that many of these women are not in
countries with first rate medical care. The U.S. military has a
presence in many countries where hospitals are woefully inadequate. In
addition, in some of these countries women do not have the right to
choose to terminate a pregnancy and so legal, safe abortions are not an
option.
Under this amendment, no doctor has to perform an abortion if he or
she has a moral, ethical, or religious objection. That is a choice,
however, for the doctor to make, not for the United States Government.
After all, in our country the right to choose family planning and
pregnancy termination services is constitutionally protected.
The Department of Defense would not be required to pay for any
abortion services provided in overseas military hospitals. This
amendment would require that private funds be used to pay for the
services.
The basic facts are that this amendment protects the life and health
of U.S. servicewomen and the dependents of military service personnel
stationed overseas. Quality medical care, commensurate with that
provided in the United States, where possible, is not too much for our
Armed Forces to expect and to receive.
I thank my colleagues, Senator Murray and Senator Snowe, for offering
this amendment and for taking leadership in trying to preserve basic
constitutional rights of our service personnel overseas. I urge my
colleagues to support the Murray/Snowe amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, how much time is available?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 19 minutes
remaining. The Senator from Washington has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. COATS. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas such time as he may
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Arkansas is
recognized.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana for
his leadership on this issue and for yielding his time.
I rise today in strong opposition to the Murray amendment. During the
Reagan and Bush administrations, abortions were prohibited at overseas
Department of Defense medical treatment facilities, except in the cases
of rape, incest, or if the mother's life should be in danger. In 1993,
just 2 days after taking office, President Clinton issued an Executive
order to the Secretary of Defense that reversed this previous ban on
abortions, which had been supported, which was reflective of our
national priorities and our national policy of not using taxpayers'
funds to provide abortions.
So the President, President Clinton, issued that Executive order
reversing the previous ban. This attempt to legislate by Executive
order was soon met with fierce resistance, not only by Members of
Congress who were greatly concerned about this reversal of position,
but by the military's own doctors.
After the administration's reversal, there were a number of articles
that appeared, but two specifically from major media outlets
challenging the President's Executive order. ``The Pentagon confirmed,
all 44 military doctors in Europe have decided against

[[Page S7157]]

doing the procedure on moral and religious grounds.'' I think that is a
tribute to our military doctors and a reflection of their own moral
concerns about this practice and their support for the traditional
position that had been in place for many years.
Additionally, one Air Force commander stated that all 10
obstetricians under his command expressed an ``unwillingness on a
personal or moral basis'' to perform abortions and, furthermore, that
he was not surprised at the doctors' response.
Military treatment centers--which are, always have been, and should
be dedicated to healing and nurturing life--should not be forced to
facilitate the taking of the most innocent of human life: the child in
the womb.
We have a policy that has worked. It is a policy that is supported by
our military doctors. It is a policy that is reflective of the position
that we have held as a Nation, even during this era in which Roe versus
Wade has sustained a woman's right to choose abortion--that policy that
we will not ask Americans who morally and religiously object to the
practice of abortion to subsidize that practice with their tax dollars.
This is a law that has worked; it is a law that is effective.
I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing the Murray amendment and
sustaining our existing policy and existing law, consistent with what
we as a Nation have held and what our current policy is. I thank the
Senator from Indiana.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Washington yield 5
minutes to the Senator from Michigan?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Michigan is
recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Murray amendment for a number
of reasons. Before I get to them, let me just say that I think all of
us recognize that the issue of abortion can stir so many emotions so
quickly that it is important for us to understand what any amendment
before us does and what it does not do. It is important to really focus
on both. What does it do and what doesn't it do?
This amendment would allow a woman seeking an abortion to pay for it
from her own funds at a military hospital overseas. That is what it
does. There has been a prohibition on this use of military hospitals
since the 1996 Defense Authorization Act was enacted. This amendment
would repeal that prohibition. In doing so, the amendment would allow a
woman serving in our Armed Forces overseas who chooses to have an
abortion to have that abortion performed in a modern American medical
facility by well-trained doctors who have volunteered for that duty,
provided that all costs and fees associated with the abortion are paid
in advance, using private funds.
This amendment would give the female service members stationed
overseas the same access to the high standards of medical hygiene,
technology, and medical care that is enjoyed by other female service
members stationed in the United States under the same standards of
medical care enjoyed by the women of America who have not chosen to
serve their country in the military. And to establish that equitable
access this amendment would permit the Department of Defense to
reinstate a policy that existed prior to 1988 which was reinstated by
the President in 1993 but was prohibited by Congress in 1996. Under
that policy that would be reinstated should this amendment become law,
as I believe it should, military women stationed overseas, as well as
adult female dependents of male or female service members living
overseas, would be able to exercise their right to have access to a
safe abortion procedure without being put at risk by having to rely on
the medical facilities available on the local economy which may not be
up to the same high standards found in American hospitals. That is a
constitutional right that we are talking about here. Many would
disagree that it should be, and I think we should respect that.

There is disagreement over this issue as to whether or not that right
which would be protected by this amendment should be protected by the
Constitution. Surely people who are of good faith disagree on that
question. But it is a constitutional right. Women who exercise that
right would be required to pay the full cost for an abortion near their
duty station by well-trained doctors who have volunteered for such
work.
What does the amendment not do? It does not provide the taxpayer
dollars to pay for the abortion because the woman must pay the full
cost. The Defense Department would be required to compute that. I don't
think that really is the issue here, although it has been raised. The
words ``taxpayers funds'' have been raised here. I don't think that is
really the issue. Because I think if the opponents of this amendment
were satisfied that there is no even indirect cost which would not be
paid for that their opposition would end. And it is the intent of the
amendment, if it is law, that the full cost be paid by the woman in
advance and the responsibility is on the Defense Department to compute
those costs.
So, again I repeat. I don't think that is really the issue. The real
issue is the underlying issue of whether or not an abortion, even if
paid for fully by the woman, should be performed in a hospital
overseas.
Another thing the amendment does not do is require military doctors
to perform abortions nor allow their careers to be affected if they
choose not to perform abortions. It protects the right of doctors in
the military not to perform abortions and protects their careers, if
they choose not to perform an abortion.
The amendment does not provide free abortions in military hospitals.
The current prohibition on the use of Federal funds for abortion
remains in effect. It is an important point. There is a prohibition on
the use of Federal funds on abortions which remains in effect under
this amendment. All costs associated with an abortion would be the
responsibility of the patient.
Mr. President, this amendment would avoid placing women who serve our
country overseas in an inequitable position relative to women who have
chosen not to serve our Nation, and I hope this amendment is adopted.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, how much time is available on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 15 minutes and 38
seconds remaining. The Senator from Washington has 4 minutes and 36
seconds remaining.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, let me address some of the questions that
have been raised here.
First, on the question of denial of constitutional right, that is not
an issue. Whether we agree that a woman ought to have a constitutional
right to an abortion or disagree, that is not the issue here because no
woman is being denied her constitutional right, whether that woman is
in the military or not, or whether that woman is in the military
serving in the United States or in the military serving overseas. That
right is not taken away from that woman.
So the issue here that will be debated, and has been debated, and
will be debated in the future over a constitutional right to an
abortion is not the issue that we are debating today. The issue that we
are debating today is whether that abortion that is sought by a
military woman ought to be performed in the military hospital.
The proponents of the amendment say that we can avoid the Federal
prohibition against use of Federal taxpayer dollars if the woman
herself pays for the abortion. But that ignores the fact that the
military hospital was constructed with Federal funds, is equipped with
Federal funds, that the salaries of the doctors and the nurses and the
staff in that hospital are paid 100 percent with Federal funds, and
that it will be an accounting nightmare as identified by the Department
of Defense to try to separate out the two.
But again let me go back to what is more fundamental. That is this
inequality of treatment. There is no inequality of treatment. A woman
today

[[Page S7158]]

who serves in the military in the United States can only get an
abortion in a military hospital if the life of the mother is in
jeopardy, or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. That same
standard applies to women in the military serving overseas. So the
standard is exactly the same.

If the woman serves in the military and is based in the United States
and does not fall under the category of exception, that woman, of
course, could get an abortion at a nonmilitary hospital in the United
States. If a woman is serving overseas and seeks an abortion and it
doesn't fall within the exception, she also can receive an abortion,
either in a hospital in the country in which she is serving, or, if
that country has a prohibition against an abortion, she can take a
military transport at no additional cost back to the States, to Great
Britain, or to some other country at which an abortion is performed.
It is a legitimate question to raise as to whether or not that woman
is being denied access to a hospital. Say she is serving in the
military in a country that by law prohibits abortions and, therefore, a
hospital is not available to that woman. Does the military in any way
deny that woman the opportunity to have an abortion at some other
place?
I specifically inquired of the Department of Defense as to what was
the answer. Their reply to me in a letter from the Assistant Secretary
of Defense is that there have been no military people to their
knowledge that have requested an abortion that has not been provided
the opportunity to have an abortion, that has not been provided
military transport to have that abortion at a place where that abortion
is legally performed.
I asked the question. Has the department had any difficulty in
implementing the policy that abortions can only be performed in
military hospitals in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother?
Their answer: ``No. We have had no difficulty on that.''
Have any formal complaints been filed concerning this policy?
``No. No formal complaints have been filed.''
Have any legal challenges been instituted concerning the policy?
``No.'' Again, have any members or their dependents been denied
access to an abortion as a result of this policy?''
The answer again was no.
Have any members or dependents been denied access to military
transport for the purpose of procuring an abortion?
The answer was no.
Then I asked the question relative to the mixing of taxpayer funds,
doctor salaries, nurse salaries, equipment purchased with taxpayers'
funds, and they said it would be impossible to separate all of that
out. It would be an accounting nightmare.
So what we have here is simply a proposal by the Senator from
Washington that addresses a problem that does not exist. The Senator
from Washington would have a legitimate point, if there was a problem
that existed. But no women are being denied constitutional rights to
have an abortion. There is no unequal treatment. There is not any
treatment available to a woman serving in the military in the United
States in a military hospital that is any different from a woman
serving overseas. The only difference is that if they happen to be
serving in a country which prohibits abortion in that country, they
have to go out of the country to have the abortion. But the military
has never had a case where they have denied military transport--not
commercial transport paid for by the military personnel but military
transport available for that person for the purpose of securing
abortion.
So there is no problem. There is no constitutional problem. There is
no equal access problem. There is no denial of constitutional rights.
And there is no case presented to us out of difficulty in this
particular instance on this particular problem.
So that while the amendment may be well intended by the Senator from
Washington it is clearly a solution in search of a problem. I
understand the philosophical difference that exists between Members of
the Senate relative to abortion. That is a debate that we have had
before. We will have it again. But it doesn't apply to this in this
particular instance.
The President clearly in 1993 shortly after he took office was
philosophically advancing his position relative to abortion. I happen
to disagree with that position. The President has the right to hold his
position. Those of us who oppose it obviously have the right to hold
ours, and we debate that. But this amendment doesn't go to that debate.
It doesn't go to that issue.
For that reason, I hope the Senate will reject the Murray amendment.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COATS. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I ask the Senator from Indiana: Is it accurate to
state that our national policy as embodied in the Hyde amendment in
essence states that we will not use Federal taxpayer money for abortion
except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother?
Mr. COATS. That is our national policy as adopted by this Congress
and signed into law.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Is it also accurate to state that in 1980 there was a
Supreme Court case which I believe was called Harris versus McRae in
which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde
amendment?
Mr. COATS. That is also correct. The Supreme Court has upheld the
constitutionality of the Hyde amendment, and the Hyde amendment has
been adopted time after time and reasserted time after time by the
Congress on a bipartisan basis and signed by Presidents of both
parties.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Therefore, based upon that action by Congress, by the
executive branch as affirmed by the judicial branch, the Supreme Court,
we are bound by a national policy that we not use Federal money except
in those cases that I cited.
Mr. COATS. That is correct.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. The Senator also referenced the DOD in their own
analysis where they said it would be an accounting nightmare to go
through to determine the true cost of having an abortion performed in a
U.S. medical facility when the facility is 100 percent taxpayer funded.
All of the personnel are paid for by the taxpayers, and all of the
equipment.
Is that accurate?
Mr. COATS. That is accurate.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Is it also then, as we follow this, accurate to say
that in order to deal with the effect of that that there is provision
for a female member of the military service, in the event she chooses
to have an abortion that she can have access to military transportation
so that she can go to a facility of her choice and exercise her
constitutional right?
Mr. COATS. That is correct. Any military personnel has access to
military transport on a space-available basis. The DOD has never had an
instance where a woman who is seeking access on a space-available basis
on military transport has been denied that because the purpose of her
transport was for an abortion.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. This is probably not necessary. But in the event
there was a problem with space available but that the situation was
life-threatening to the woman, would she not be allowed to have a
procedure done at a U.S. military hospital overseas where she is?
Mr. COATS. Absolutely. She would be.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Let me make this very clear again. Today, if a woman serving
overseas--whether she is in Bosnia or Saudi Arabia--would like to have
health services, she would have to go through a commanding officer and
request permission to come home to the United States to have that
procedure take place, and at the taxpayers' expense they would fly her
home. Under my amendment she would be allowed to use her own money to
pay for abortion-related services in a military hospital overseas.
I think that is a reasonable request for those women that we ask to
serve in a country far away from home.
Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from California.

[[Page S7159]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague from Washington for yielding and for
her leadership, and I thank our ranking member, Senator Levin, for his
very strong statement in behalf of women in the military.
Mr. President, my colleague from Indiana says this is about
philosophy, but I could not disagree with him more. This is about how
we treat our military personnel who happen to be women.
Now, my colleague from Idaho says taxpayer money should not be used
in any abortion and therefore this policy ought to be kept. The fact is
the women, who have the right to choose under American law, would make
that choice and pay the bill, including the overhead, at the military
hospital.
Mr. President, it is very hard to ever repay our men and women in the
military for the sacrifices they make every single day. They have no
idea at what moment they are going to be called upon to put their very
life on the line. Their families live in fear that that could happen
any moment, whether they are stationed in Bosnia, as many are now,
whether they are stationed in Saudi Arabia, as many are now.
How would you like to be a female stationed in one of those
countries, knowing what their attitude is and their philosophy is about
a woman's right to choose, and be forced into one of those hospitals?
Oh, you can get on a plane in an as-available situation. What if it is
not available? What if it means you have to take a tremendous amount of
leave time and that complicates your life? This is a decision a woman
makes--perhaps my colleagues are unaware, if a woman decides to
exercise her right to choose, this is not a light decision. This is
something she has come to grips with, and it is her right in this
country until they have the votes to overturn it, and I hope I never
see that day in the Senate.
So, Mr. President, we can never repay the men and women in the
military, so what do we do in this policy since this Congress changed
hands and a President's policy was overturned? This is how we repay the
women in the military? We tell them that we will not allow them their
constitutional right to choose a safe, legal abortion in a military
hospital even if they pay every single cent for their procedure.
Now, we know that no level of pay could adequately compensate our men
and women in the military. There is no price you can put on the
patriotism that is involved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. Let us not slap the women in the military. Let us support
the Murray-Snowe amendment.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I inquire of the time remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 5 minutes 26
seconds, the Senator from Washington has 47 seconds.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, let me just address a question that has
been raised by the Senator from California. I think the Senator
misunderstood what I said or perhaps I did not say it right. I said
that while there is a philosophical debate among Members of Congress as
to the constitutional right of a woman to have an abortion, I said we
have debated that at other times and we will debate it at other times
in the future. But what I thought I had said is that that is not what
is at issue here. There are no constitutional rights of any woman being
denied under this current policy and so that is not at issue here.
Perhaps my remarks were misunderstood.
Second, let me just say that this is not a policy that divides
necessarily Republicans and Democrats. Congress changing hands had
nothing to do with the change in this policy. The policy was changed by
the President of the United States. This Congress has consistently
voted, whether it was led by Democrats or led by Republicans, to uphold
the Hyde amendment which prohibited the use of taxpayers' dollars
except in cases of life of the mother, rape and incest. That has gained
support from Republicans, gained support from Democrats. When the
Democrats were in charge of this Senate, that policy was enforced. And
when the Republicans were in charge of the Congress, that policy was
enforced. So it really is not something that necessarily drives a
stake, a lane down between Republicans and Democrats.
Then the question raised by the Senator from Washington about the
cost of military transport. Military transport is available to women on
a space-available basis. Those who have had the privilege of serving in
the military, as I and others have, realize the military is constantly
flying planes back and forth not only to the United States but various
bases within the theater of operations.
If you are in Korea, there are flights on a regular basis and a
voluminous number between the various bases in Asia. If you are in
Europe, the same takes place. Women who cannot have an abortion because
they are stationed in a country that prohibits that abortion have easy
access not all the way back to the United States--there if they
choose--but easy access to countries in Europe where we have other
bases or other countries where they can go to get that abortion.
So what we are saying here today has nothing to do with a woman's
right to an abortion. It has everything to do with whether or not we
will uphold, consistently support a policy and uphold a policy that
says we cannot and should not force taxpayers who have a moral or
religious basis to oppose abortion, to use their tax dollars to pay for
those abortions.
That is what is at issue here. We are simply trying to uphold the
standard that this Congress has adopted that is currently law, law
which, by the way, despite his own personal feelings, was signed into
law by the President of the United States.
There are no instances of any woman in the military who has been
denied access to an abortion. So let us make sure that we understand
the nature of this amendment, the nature of the issue that is before us
and what we are voting on.
Those who come down to this floor and vote on the basis that a
woman's right to an abortion is being denied have not understood the
nature of the current policy. I urge Members to uphold the Hyde
language which allows abortions for life of the mother, rape or incest,
to uphold the current Department of Defense policy which gives women
the access to abortions if they serve overseas but cannot have it
performed in that country. But let us not open up military hospitals
that are constructed with Federal funds and equipped with Federal
funds, let us not open up military hospitals whose doctors and nurses
are paid with taxpayer funds. Let us maintain the current policy. It
makes sense. It does not deny women opportunity to have an abortion if
they want that abortion.
We can have the debate about the constitutionality of abortion or
what restrictions we ought to put on those abortions as we have had on
partial-birth abortion and as we will have in the future, but that is
not what is at issue today. I urge rejection of the amendment of the
Senator from Washington.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Let me just end this debate by reiterating for my
colleagues that today a woman who seeks reproductive health services
has to ask her commanding officer and be flown home at taxpayer expense
on one of our transports in order to receive reproductive health
services. Under my amendment, she will be able to pay for it at her own
cost in a safe military hospital overseas. The bottom line is this is
about the basic rights of those women whom we are asking to serve in
remote locations to protect this democracy and fight for our country
and for other countries overseas to be given the right to reproductive
health care services.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
593 offered by the Senator from Washington. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S7160]]

The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 167 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--51

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Mikulski

The amendment (No. 593) was rejected.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was rejected, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. The Senator will
suspend. The Senate will please come to order.

Amendment No. 794, As Modified

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk on behalf
of Senator Gramm of Texas and myself.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Point of inquiry. Did we have an order of amendments
we had agreed to?
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from Utah will clarify that, is
that an amendment to the pending second-degree amendment?
Mr. HATCH. This is a modification of the amendment to the Levin
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object. Mr. President, what is the
order? I thought the order of business was the Wellstone amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending second-degree amendment is the
amendment of the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, to the Levin
amendment. The Senator from Utah sent up a modification to the Gramm
second-degree amendment to the Levin amendment. Is there objection to
the modification? Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

Strike all in amendment numbered 778 and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
``The Department of Defense and Federal Prison Industries
shall conduct jointly a study of existing procurement
procedures regulations, and statutes which now govern
procurement transactions between the Department of Defense
and Federal Prison Industries.
``A report describing the findings of the study and
containing recommendations on the means to improve the
efficiency and reduce the cost of such transactions shall be
submitted to the U.S. Senate committees on Armed Services and
the Judiciary no later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this act.''

Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now
be 1 hour for debate on the Wellstone amendment No. 668 equally divided
in the usual form, and following that debate time, the amendment be
laid aside and the Senate resume consideration of the Gramm amendment
No. 794, with 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form.
I further ask unanimous consent that following that debate, the
amendment be temporarily set aside and Senator Boxer then be recognized
to offer an amendment regarding executive compensation, with a time
limitation of 1 hour and 20 minutes equally divided in the usual form.
I further ask unanimous consent that following that debate, Senator
Bingaman be recognized to offer an amendment regarding space-based
laser.
I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally
divided in the usual form prior to each vote ordered in the stacked
sequence and that at 6 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote on, or in
relation to, the Wellstone amendment No. 668, to be followed by a vote
on, or in relation to, the Gramm amendment No. 794, to be followed by a
vote on, or in relation to, the Levin amendment No. 778, as amended, if
amended, to be followed by a vote on, or in relation to, the Boxer
amendment regarding compensation.
Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no second-degree
amendments be in order to any of the above-mentioned amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Amendment No. 668, As Modified

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I think we are now on our
amendment. I believe it is No. 668. Mr. President, I am going to just
take 5 minutes. I am proud to be joined by my colleague from Iowa,
Senator Harkin.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Daschle and Senator Kerry from
Massachusetts be added as original cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I, again, want to stress support from
three organizations that have had a chance to really take a look at
this. I think there is broad support from the veterans community--I
really hope that we will get a strong vote for this amendment--from the
Disabled American Veterans, from the Vietnam Veterans of America, and
from the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Earlier I asked unanimous
consent that letters of their support be printed in the Record.
What we do here is we just simply give the Secretary of Defense
discretion authority to transfer $400 million to the VA to restore VA
funding for health care. This was cut in the budget resolution.
Again, I want to make it real clear to my colleagues that I don't
think any of us really understood that we were going to have these kind
of deep cuts in the VA health care budget. I want to, in a couple of
minutes, make the point that we are not just talking about abstract
numbers and statistics, we are talking about people's lives. In
particular, I want to talk about what the VA health care system is
dealing with.
First of all, the Persian Gulf veterans. When we had testimony in the
Veterans' Committee, it was very, very important that when General
Schwarzkopf came in, one of the points he made was one commitment we
can make to the gulf war veterans, I say to my colleague from Iowa, is
to make sure we do the research as to what happened to them, and,
second of all, we make sure that those veterans get the health care
that they need.
Mr. President, this has everything in the world to do with defense.
They were there supporting our country, and, in addition, let me point
out that the Department of Defense, I think if there was any one agency
in Government that would be more than willing to transfer a little bit
of funding to make sure those veterans get health care, it certainly
would be the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Defense.
So it is a mild amendment. It does not ask for much. It just simply
says we shouldn't have cut this $400 million. I want to make it real
clear on the Senate floor, that if we don't win today--and I hope we
will--my colleague and I are, one way or another, absolutely committed
to restoring this funding.
You can be talking about the gulf war veterans, you can be talking
about the Vietnam veterans, you can be talking about post-traumatic
stress syndrome, you can be talking about World War II and Korean war
veterans who

[[Page S7161]]

are now older and need the care as well. Mr. President, by the year
2000, one out of every three veterans is going to be 65 years of age or
older, and 63 percent of all American males over the age of 65 will be
veterans. These are the demographics.
So there is nothing more important we can do than to make sure that
we live up to our contract to provide these veterans with the support
that they need.

What is going to happen if we don't restore the funds? This is my
conclusion. It is a simple argument we are making. If we don't restore
the $400 million this year, what is going to happen is we are going to
accelerate closure of inpatient care, we are going to offer fewer
ambulatory services, we are going to reduce long-term care, and we are
going to treat fewer veterans. That is what is going to happen. That is
wrong. If we want to help veterans, this is an opportunity to do so.
We all love to be in the parades, we all speak at the veterans'
gatherings, we all say it is a sacred contract, we all say that we
support veterans. Well, Mr. President, we cut $400 million, and my
colleagues can ask any veteran in any of your States, and they didn't
know about it.
Now is the time to rectify this mistake. Now is the time to take a
small amount of money, $400 million, out of $2.6 billion more than the
Pentagon asked for and at least give the Secretary of Defense the
authority to transfer this funding. I am sure this will happen if we
vote for it, and I hope that we get a very strong vote.
This amendment is a justice amendment. We should not be cutting
health care services for veterans. The demand is increasing for that
care, and we ought to, as U.S. Senators, Democrats and Republicans
alike, respond to veterans, we ought to support veterans, and the right
thing to do is to vote for this amendment.
I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from Iowa for all of his
support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield to the Senator from Iowa the remainder of our
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. How much time do I
have, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-four minutes and forty-eight seconds.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague, my friend from
Minnesota for offering this amendment. I join with him, as he said, in
offering it.
He has laid out the case for veterans. We have shortchanged them. I
heard someone ask earlier: ``This is the defense bill, this is defense
authorization. Later on there will be a veterans bill we can deal with.
We deal with veterans later. Why does it belong here?''
It belongs here because, Mr. President, I submit you cannot defend
this country unless we first defend our veterans, and that is what the
Senator from Minnesota is saying in this amendment. He is right, we
have given the Pentagon $2.6 billion more than they even asked for and,
at the same time, turned around and cut our veterans health care
program by $400 million. What kind of signal does that send to our
young men and women in uniform today about their prospects in the
future for having their health care needs taken care of if, in fact,
they should find themselves in an enclave like those veterans found in
Vietnam or the gulf war or Korea or World War II.
Mr. President, there may be those who say if we take this $400
million out of defense, it is going to really hurt our readiness; we
can't afford to cut our defense budget for something like this. I would
like to take some time to refute that argument and to say, in fact, the
military budget that we have today is far too bloated to meet the
threats or potential threats that confront our country at this time.
No one disputes that the cold war is over, but some in this body
would like to continue funding the Department of Defense as if it never
ended. I know the world is still a dangerous place, but we must ask
ourselves, is our current defense budget justified by the dangers faced
by the United States? I don't believe they are justified.
The fact is, military spending is so high that it can be lowered
without endangering national security. Even with the elimination of the
Soviet Union, defense spending is still much larger than cold war
spending levels. And what is all this money for? What enemy are we
going to fight? Is it Cuba who spends less than 1 percent on its
military budget? Or Libya, Iraq, Iran or North Korea or Syria? Or are
we just going to spend $268 billion next year simply to have a large
military? So let's look at some of the figures and take a comparison.
U.S. military spending right now is three times--and look at this
chart--our U.S. military spending. Here is the pie chart showing in
billions of dollars the amount of money spent by various countries on
defense. The United States spends three times more than China, India,
Pakistan, Russia, and Vietnam all combined. It is more than double all
of our NATO Allies combined. It is larger than the military budgets of
the countries with the seven largest standing armies. Most important,
the United States will spend nearly twice what all of our potential
enemies spend on defense all combined. So if you add up all of our
potential enemies, we will spend twice what they will spend on defense,
all of them combined.
Some have pointed out we should continue high levels of military
spending because we don't know what our potential enemies are. A threat
could come from anywhere. Let's assume this is true, for argument's
sake. Let's break the world down by countries then, and see what we are
talking about in terms of potential threats.
Let us break it down by continents. What if every nation on the most
powerful continent besides North America ganged up on the United
States? By this, I mean all of Europe. Let us say that all of Europe--
Germany and France and Spain and Great Britain and Italy and all these
countries that are our friends--what if they all ganged up on us? Very
remote, but if they did, we still outspend this potential threat by a
great deal, by almost $60 billion. You might say that is ridiculous, in
Europe we have our allies, they are in NATO. They are not going to
attack us. OK.
What if every power in Africa joined in? Here is Africa down here,
remote possibility, but they are only spending about $14 billion a
year.
In fact, if you add up all the military expenses of all of Europe,
Africa, and South America, combined--let us say that all of the
countries of Europe, South America, and Africa all combined together to
attack us--we still spend more in defense than all of those three
continents all put together.
So I ask again, why are we spending so much money? This is the world.
We are spending more than all of these continents all put together.
There is another aspect to our defense. As it stands right now, such
a large portion of our discretionary budget goes for defense that we
are actually endangering our national security. Our citizens are
threatened, the life and health of our country is threatened. Every
extra dollar we spend on defense that we do not need to is a dollar
less for education, for putting police on the streets, for stopping the
drug epidemic, and feeding hungry children.
In fact, the amount of discretionary funding spent on defense totals
over 50 percent of the discretionary budget. That means that the
portion of the total budget that we actually decide on where it goes
overwhelmingly goes for defense. For every dollar that we spend out of
this body, over 50 cents goes to defense--not education, not health
care, not breakfast feeding for kids in schools, not for flood victims,
but for the military.
Here again is a pie chart. Look at it. This is our discretionary
dollar that we spend. So 51.5 cents for military; all the rest for
everything else. Justice gets 4 cents; housing assistance gets 3 cents;
health gets 4.8 cents, transportation 2.7 cents. You wonder why our
highways are going to pot and with potholes? You wonder why our
railroads are deficient?
Here is energy, less than 1 penny; education, 6 cents; 51.5 cents for
the military. Six cents on education. You wonder why our schools are
crumbling? You wonder why we are not getting the best possible
teachers? Well, we are only spending that much money in education.

[[Page S7162]]

Natural resources and environment, 4 cents.
So I think this really graphically shows where our money goes. Over
half for defense; less than half for everything else that goes to make
us a strong nation.
Some who argue for increased defense spending point out the defense
spending has gone down from 1985. I heard that argument early today. A
Senator on the floor said, ``Oh, my gosh, the defense budget has been
cut by something like 30 percent since 1985.'' OK. Why do you use 1985?
Why do we start with 1985, when 1985 was the peak of military spending,
the buildup during the Reagan years? So, yes, you can measure it from
1985.
Why don't we measure it from 1980? Let us take the height of the cold
war, 1980, when we faced the Soviet Union. Well, our spending today is
just about the same, actually maybe just a little bit more than it was
in 1980. Yes, we have come down from 1985. But I submit, Mr. President,
those who say that we have cut our defense spending are using an
arbitrary point. They are using the point at which we had the highest
military spending since the war. I say what we ought to use is a
baseline like 1980 or 1970. And if we look at those base years, we get
a much different level.
So why are we comparing today's spending levels to 1985? The world
today is not the world of 1980 or 1985 or 1990. We should be discussing
the defense budget in terms of today's threats, that is, unless we plan
to take the United States Army and our defense back in time to 1985 and
have them fight the Soviet Union. But we will not do that because there
is no Soviet Union.
Why does it matter so much what we spent in 1985 when the Soviet
Union was a threat? We should look at today's threats and potential
threats, match our spending to meet them, not the threats of 1985.
Aside from all that, the Wellstone amendment seeks, as we know, to
shift $400 million out of $268 billion. We are saying, take $400
million, shift it over to veterans health care. As the Senator pointed
out, we have $2.6 billion more than what the Pentagon asked for. Will
we really harm our readiness if we take $400 million out for veterans
health? I submit not. Why are we giving the Defense Department more
money when they cannot even keep track of the money they have already
spent and they are wasting billions on buying equipment they do not
need?
Mr. President, in February of this year, I released a General
Accounting Office report requested by myself, Congressman DeFazio,
Senator Durbin, and Congresswoman Maloney. This study revealed that
over half of the Department of Defense inventory of procured items is
overstock; in other words, waste. Of the $67 billion of goods in DOD
warehouses, the GAO estimates that $41 billion is unneeded. What do you
mean by unneeded? By unneeded, this means the military would never need
or use the items even during wartime. Let me repeat that. Of the $67
billion in goods in DOD warehouses, GAO estimated that $41 billion is
unneeded even in wartime.

That is not all. Again, here is the inventory. This is what this
chart shows. Total inventory is $67 billion. About $41 billion, or 61
percent, of it is in excess of what is needed for operational
requirements or for reserve requirements. The needed inventory is about
$25.8 billion. So we have all this waste out there that we do not need,
and yet you would think it would end. But, it never seems to end. It
just continues going on and on and on.
The GAO identified more than $1.1 billion worth of goods--11,000
different items--for which there is a 100-year supply. Imagine that. Do
we expect our Army to fight with something 100 years from now that was
built today? Bring back the horse cavalry. Maybe that is what today's
Army needs, what we used 100 years ago. So 100 years, with 11,000
different items, totaling $1.1 billion.
But that is not all. The GAO also uncovered millions of dollars in
DOD inventory items for which there is more than a 20-year supply. Yet,
the Pentagon continues to buy more. The justification by the Pentagon
for not canceling many of these orders actually border on the bizarre.
Some were not canceled because termination ``was not cost-effective''
for any purchase less than $10,000.
Other items are automatically ordered without review or regard to
need. The computer just keeps ordering them. As a result, we do not
just have warehouses of waste, I call them arsenals of bureaucracy.
What we have is Sergeant Bilko manning the warehouse, Beetle Bailey
running procurement, and Gomer Pyle checking the list twice.
This photo here shows just one item that was uncovered called a
direct linear valve used on a hydraulic pump used on aircraft carriers.
The Pentagon has more than a 20-year supply on this item. Although only
8 of those in stock were needed, an additional 66 were on order in
1995. Only 8 were needed, but an additional 66 were ordered.
Again, we asked why the Navy did not cancel the order. Well, they
said, termination was not ``cost-effective for any purchase less than
$10,000.'' So if it costs less than $10,000, it is cheaper for the
taxpayers to buy it. Please, someone, make sense of that for me. If it
costs less than $10,000, keep buying it, keep stocking it because it
costs more to cancel it. Try selling that to your constituents back
home.
Here is another one. This is a circuit board, aircraft circuit board.
In 1995, 10 were on order. The only problem was that the Navy had 27 of
these, but only 2 were needed for operational and wartime reserve.
That is not the last of it. This is a 1972 state-of-the-art
electronic item. So we asked, why did they keep ordering them? Well,
according to the item manager, the Navy supply system computer
automatically ordered the item and no one bothered to review the order.
But not to worry. After the 10 new assemblies of these circuit boards--
at more than $1,000 each--were delivered in May, they were
automatically routed for disposal. What does that mean? They ordered
them; they came in; someone stamped them, shoved them out the backdoor
to throw away.
So do not tell me that taking $400 million for veterans health care
is going to somehow hurt our readiness or hurt our ability to defend
this country from any threats that exist today or any potential threats
in the foreseeable future.
But what this $400 million will mean is that those veterans who put
themselves in harm's way, who were there to sacrifice life and limb for
their country, who were in the gulf war or in Haiti or in Bosnia,
Vietnam, Korea, World War II, or even peacetime--I do not mean just to
focus on our veterans who were in wartime. What is that saying? It is
not just those who are in battle, but those who support those in
battle, our peacetime army, our peacetime military.
My brother was a SAC pilot in the Strategic Air Command for 5 years
carrying nuclear weapons. None were ever dropped, but this was our
front line of defense. This is what kept the Soviet bear in check. So
these, too, these veterans also have to be responded to in terms of
their health care needs.
So I am talking about all veterans, not just those who have been in
actual war but those who were willing, if the orders came, to fight and
to perhaps die for their country.
I believe we have an absolute obligation to support our troops not
only in time of battle but also at home when the battle ends. I believe
we have a special obligation to those in our Armed Forces who were
disabled in the service of our country. Veterans programs too often
suffer inadequate funding and misguided policies.

As Senator Wellstone pointed out, our veterans population is aging
rapidly, and the hospital system is stretched to its limits. The
proposed cuts to the VA budget, which is already inadequate for the
medical needs of veterans, is an unacceptable way to try to balance the
budget. These cuts will have a drastic and severe effect on the health
of our Nation's veterans, especially those veterans who were disabled
in the service of our country.
So what our amendment seeks to do is to alleviate these unfair cuts
in the veterans discretionary funding by transferring $400 million from
the Department of Defense budget to VA. We can do it. The money is
there. If the Department of Defense will just cut down a little bit on
their waste and inefficiencies, if we will begin to gear our thinking
towards the threats of today

[[Page S7163]]

and tomorrow instead of what the world was like 10 and 20 years ago, if
we do that, there is plenty of money in the defense budget to make sure
that we meet our obligation to our veterans.
I do not think this Senate should do anything less than that. This
amendment should be adopted overwhelmingly to send a strong signal not
only to our veterans but to those who are serving today that when their
time of need comes and they need health care through the veterans
system, that this country will stand behind them when they are veterans
just as it stands behind them when they are serving in active duty.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
How much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 5 minutes 27
seconds.
Who yields time?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendments
offered by Senator Wellstone and any other amendment which lowers
defense spending below the level set in the budget agreement. We have a
budget agreement with the administration that we should not disregard--
an agreement that was widely supported by this body and the
administration--and frankly, Mr. President, this agreement itself may
not provide enough funding for defense.
Mr. President, our military forces are beginning to show the stress
of constrained budget and too many deployments. Funding for
modernization and quality of life initiatives is continually diverted
to fund current operations with promises to fix the modernization
problem in the future. This is no longer acceptable. It should not be
acceptable to any of the Members of this body.
The Department of Defense is continuing their downsizing. This year's
defense budget request represents lowest percent of our GDP in the last
57 years. Force levels have shrunk from 2.1 million service members at
the end of the cold war to 1.4 million today. Annual spending in the
Department of Defense has decreased in the last 10 years from $375 to
$250 billion in inflation adjusted dollars. Even at the level of
funding proposed in the budget agreement, the Quadrennial Defense
Review is recommending force structure reductions up to 130,000
military personnel as well as reductions in key modernization programs.
Mr. President, I believe that a mismatch is developing between
strategy and actual force capability. GAO and CBO have both given
estimates to the underfunding of the modernization accounts. The budget
agreement does not fully fund defense. It does represent what funds are
available. Funding defense at the levels proposed by these amendments
will have serious impacts on the readiness and quality of life of our
service personnel.
Command Sergeants Major Alley, U.S. Forces Command, has summed it
pretty well when he stated.

Our soldiers do not ask for much. What they do ask for is
stability in deployments, adequate housing, quality-of-life
programs, and adequate compensation.

Mr. President, if this body allows these amendments or other
amendments to lower defense spending below what was agreed to--I
repeat, was agreed to--in the budget agreement, we will be responsible
for the impacts on the readiness of our forces, we will increase the
tempo of our operating forces, and we will not be able to provide the
quality of life programs, our service members deserve.
I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask unanimous consent that
the time be equally divided between both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the
Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning
business for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S.
1003 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 794, As Modified

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the Gramm amendment.
Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I rise to speak again in opposition to the Levin
amendment, and in support of the Gramm second degree amendment. The
Levin amendment, if enacted, would cripple Federal Prison Industries,
by essentially eliminating the only market for its products. 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. I do not believe that Senator Levin is
suggesting that we change the law and allow FPI to compete for business
in the general market place. Yet, if we effectively eliminate the
Government market for FPI goods, and FPI cannot sell its products to
the public, who will its customers be?
Those advocating elimination of the FPI's Government procurement
preference suggest that their goal is only a level playing field, and
complain the FPI wages ensure unfair competition. Yet, they do not
mention the tremendous costs and inefficiencies inherent in operating a
manufacturing operation behind bars. FPI endures security and work
force challenges few private plant managers can even imagine.
FPI puts 100 percent of its revenues back into the private sector.
Thousands of private sector jobs depend on supplying FPI with materials
and services. My colleagues should ask themselves, if FPI is forced to
close its factories, what will replace those private sector jobs?
FPI is also an essential prison management and rehabilitation tool.
Any corrections officer will tell you, the most dangerous inmate is the
idle inmate. Idleness breeds frustration, and provides ample time to
plan mischief--a volatile combination. Yet, despite the references to
the costs imposed by FPI by my colleagues who support this amendment, I
have heard no one suggest how the taxpayers will pay for the new prison
programs and the additional prison guards that might be needed if FPI
factories are forced to close.
Either we want Federal inmates to work, or we do not. I believe that
we do want inmates to work, and therefor 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.
The Gramm amendment provides a better approach, by requiring a study
and report to Congress on FPI and FPI's market needs and impact. As
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have a strong interest in this
issue. I would note that my colleagues who support the Levin amendment
have not approached me about addressing this issue in the Committee.

[[Page S7164]]

Congress should consider this issue carefully before effectively
eliminating a prison program that has served the Nation well for 60
years. This is particularly the case, as my friend from Texas has
pointed out, that Congress allows no other market for prison-made goods
and services. If we are going to consider eliminating the government
sales preference, I believe it appropriate for us to also consider
permitting prison goods to be sold on the open market as well.
However, even then they may not be competitive because of the
differences of efficiency between those who are about a quarter as much
productive as the private sector workers are.
Prison security and prisoner rehabilitation are too important matters
to risk hurried action based on emotion. I urge my colleagues to reject
the Levin proposal and adopt the Gramm substitute amendment.
Mr. President, this is an important issue. I hope our colleagues will
pay attention to it. I would hate to see what would happen to our
prisons if we didn't have this privilege of helping these people to do
meaningful work and have the opportunity of selling their goods and
services that will be from a quality and price standpoint and delivery
standpoint competitive with the private sector.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
I understand the distinguished Senator from Texas will be here later.
I would like him to have the remaining part of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes in support of my
amendment which is cosponsored by Senators Abraham, Robb, Helms,
Kempthorne, Daschle, and Burns.
The issue really is the opportunity to sell goods and services. That
is, indeed, the issue. The question is whether or not the private
sector ought to have the opportunity to sell its goods and services
when its price is better than the price of Federal Prison Industries.
That is the issue.
The national performance review had as one of its reforms in
procurement that we should require Federal Prison Industries to compete
commercially for Federal agency business. That is what we are talking
about--whether they ought to have a monopoly so that even though their
goods are higher in price, Federal Prison Industries is able to say
that an agency must buy their product. That wasn't the intent of the
Federal Prison Industries law. The intent was that they are supposed to
be competitive. They have all kinds of advantages.
The labor prices in prisons, needless to say, range from something
like 23 cents an hour to $1.15 an hour. They don't pay income tax, no
medical benefits, no retirement, and no benefits, obviously. So they
have tremendous economic advantage to begin with. Nonetheless, with all
of those advantages, what we have said is, if they can produce
something more cheaply than the private sector, that the Federal
agencies ought to be able to buy that product, and they should. What
this amendment simply says is that if the private sector, despite all
of the advantages that Federal Prison Industries has in terms of cheap
labor--no income tax, no medical costs, and so forth charged to the
product --if, despite all of that, a business can produce a product
more cheaply that it ought to be able to sell that product to its
Government.
So the issue is exactly the opportunity to sell goods. But it is the
opportunity for business people in the private sector to sell goods to
their Government. The frustration level is very high here. We get
letters from people--veterans who write us, who say, ``Is it justice
that Federal Prison Industries would step in and take business away
from a disabled Vietnam vet twice wounded fighting for the country
effectively destroying and bankrupting that hero's business which the
Veterans' Administration suggested he enter?''
This is a man who can't bid. He is not allowed to bid on a product
his own Government is buying.
Here is a letter that comes in from Colorado from Access Products of
Colorado. The award in this case went to Federal Prison Industries,
although the charge to the Air Force was $45 for this particular unit.
This private sector guy was offering it at $22 per unit. So the
taxpayers are paying twice as much, and he is not allowed to sell a
product that he makes on the outside to his Air Force.
The private sector is very deeply involved in my amendment, and very
strongly supportive of it. The NFIB strongly supports it. The chamber
of commerce strongly supports the Levin-Abraham amendment. The National
Association of Manufacturers strongly support this amendment. The
reason they support it is because of the principle that it embodies--
the principle of competition. That principle is that people who are in
business struggling to make a living wanting to sell to their
Government ought to at least be allowed to bid competitively against
Federal Prison Industries which has tremendous advantage and does
frequently underbid the private sector because of those advantages in
terms of labor costs and all the other advantages they have.
That frequently happens, that their prices are much lower than the
private sector because of all those advantages. But when the private
sector is able to produce a product, be it clothing or furniture, or
whatever, more cheaply than Federal Prison Industries, it ought to be
allowed to sell to its Government. And that is why this issue is so
important to the private sector.
My time is up. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while I am on my feet, let me just yield
myself 3 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. I wish to introduce a letter from a coalition called the
Competition in Contracting Act Coalition. I want to read this letter
because it is short and it states our case, I think, very well.
The coalition is made up of 28 organizations, 204 businesses that
support the Levin-Abraham amendment relative to the mandatory source
status of Prison Industries. And this is what the letter goes on to
say:

Your legislation would allow businesses to compete with the
FPI for Federal contracts. Today they are prohibited from
doing so. If a product is made in a Federal prison and
Federal agencies are forced to buy that product, the only way
around the requirement is for an agency to seek a waiver from
FPI . . . Your bill would implement a recommendation of the
National Performance Review which stated that our Government
should ``take away the Federal Prison Industries status as a
mandatory source of Federal supply and require it to compete
commercially for Federal agencies' business.''
This solution would help manufacturers by eliminating the
barrier to competition and allowing the bid process to take
place. It would help Government agencies by allowing them to
compare price and quality from a broad array of sources.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, if this letter is not already
made part of the Record, it be made part of the Record, including the
list of 204 businesses that are part of this coalition that come, I
think, from just about every one of our States.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

The Competition in

Contracting Act Coalition,

Washington, DC, June 19, 1997.
Hon. Carl Levin,
U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Levin: Our national coalition of 28
organizations and 204 businesses is known as the Competition
in Contracting Act Coalition. We are in full support of your
effort to reform Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI) by
ending its mandatory source status.
Your legislation, S. 339, would allow businesses to compete
with FPI for federal contracts. Today, they are prohibited
from doing so. If a product is made in a federal prison, then
federal agencies are forced to buy that product. The only way
around the requirement is for an agency to seek a waiver from
FPI, also known as UNICOR.
S. 339 would implement a recommendation of the National
Performance Review which stated that our government should
``Take away the Federal Prison Industries' status as a
mandatory source of federal supplies and require it to
compete commercially for federal agencies' business.'' This
solution would help manufacturers by eliminating the barrier
to competition and allowing the bid process to take place. It
would help government agencies by allowing them to compare

[[Page S7165]]

price and quality from a broad array of sources.
The damage being done to our private sector economy by
federal prison factories is getting worse every year.
Attached is a copy of our coalition membership list, all of
whom support your effort to save private sector jobs and
bring fairness to companies trying to work with the federal
government.
Sincerely,
Brad Miller,
Manager of Government Affairs, BIFMA International and
Contact Person, Competition in Contracting Act
Coalition.

members as of June 19, 1997

Abbey Business Interiors, Fresno, California.
Abear Construction Ltdc Co., Albuquerque, New Mexico.
ABCO Office Furniture, Florence, Alabama.
Access Products, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Adden Furniture, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia.
ADM International, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.
AGI, High Point, North Carolina.
Alexander Patterson Group, Inc., Dayton, Ohio.
All Makes Office Equipment Company, Omaha, Nebraska.
American Apparel Manufacturer's Association, Arlington,
Virginia.
American Furniture Manufacturer's Association, High Point,
North Carolina.
American Seating company, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
American Society of Interior Designers, Washington, D.C.
American Traffic Safety Services Association,
Fredericksburg, Virginia.
American Space Planners, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland.
ANADAC, Arlington, Virginia.
Apex Office Supply & Deskin, Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Architectural Woodwork Institute, Reston, Virginia.
Arkwright Mills, Spartanburg, South Carolina.
ASC Office Furniture, Alexandria, Virginia.
Aspects, Inc., Redlands, California.
Automation Products, Inc., Newport News, Virginia.
Batty & Hoyt, Inc., Rochester, New York.
Bayer Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Bernhardt Contract, Lenoir, North Carolina.
Bevis Furniture, Florence, Alabama.
BIFMA International, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
BKM Total Office, San Diego, California.
BKM Total Office of Texas, Dallas, Texas.
Blount Associates, Laguna Beach, California.
Boring Business Equipment, Lakeland, Florida.
BPI, Inc., Kent, Washington.
Brenner Tours, Hopkins, Michigan.
Brent Industries, Inc., Brent, Alabama.
Bristol Industries, Inc., Mentone, California.
The Buckstaff Company, Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
Business Accessories/Colecraft, Lancaster, New York.
Business Coalition for Fair Competition, Annandale,
Virginia.
Business Environments, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Business Interiors, Inc., Denver, Colorado.
Business Products Industry Association, Alexandria,
Virginia.
Business Resource Group, San Antonio, Texas.
Business & Associations for a Strong Economy, Lansing,
Michigan.
California Business Interiors, Sante Fe Springs,
California.
Carolina Business Furniture, Archdale, North Carolina.
Capitol Furniture Distributing Company, Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.
Jack Cartwright, Inc., High Point, North Carolina.
CDM Contract Furnishings, Inc., Austin Texas.
Cedar Crest Banquet Centre, Marshall, Michigan.
Centercore Group, Plainfield, New Jersey.
Coalition for Government Procurement, Washington, D.C.
CONCO, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky.
Contract Interiors, Columbia, South Carolina.
Comfortage Industries, Gurnee, Illinois.
Computing Technology Industry Association, Lombard,
Illinois.
Contemporary Galleries of WV, Charleston, West Virginia.
Contract Marketing Group, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.
Country Manor Real Estate & Rentals, Onondacia, Michigan.
Creative Apparel, Associates, Belmont, Maine.
Creative Office Pavilion, Boston, Massachusetts.
Creative Office Seating, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
CYSI, Washington, D.C.
Danco Resource Group, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Dehler Mfg. Co. Inc., Chicago, Illinois.
Delta Graphic, Inc., Chester, Virginia.
Direct Contract Associates, Inc., Springfield, Virginia.
EAC Integrated Furniture Solutions, St. Louis, Missouri.
Economy Office Furniture, Fresno, California.
Eckadams, Ewing, New Jersey.
Executive Office Concepts, Compton, California.
FHB Byde Company, East Lansing, Michigan.
Facilities Plus, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.
Fixtures Furniture, Kansas City, Missouri
Flex-Y-Plan Industries, Inc., Fairview, Pennsylvania.
Foldcraft Co., Kenyon, Minnesota.
Furniture Group Industries, Inc., Fridley, Minnesota.
Furniture Source, Hendersonville, Tennessee.
Future Media Products, Inc., Orlando, Florida.
G & T Industries, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan.
G/M Business Interiors, San Bernardino, California.
Garrett Container Systems, Inc., Accident, Maryland.
Gasser Chair Co., Inc., Youngstown, Ohio.
General Engineering Service, Inc., Forest Park, Georgia.
GF Office Furniture, Ltd., Canfield, Ohio.
Girsberger Office Seating, Smithfield, North Carolina.
Global Industries, Inc., Marlton, New Jersey.
Glotzbach & Co., Manassas, Virginia.
The Glove Corporation, Alexandria, Indiana.
Goodmans, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona.
Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce, Grand Rapids,
Michigan.
Grand Rapids Area Furniture Manufacturers Association,
Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Gregson Furniture, Liberty, North Carolina.
The Gunlocke Company, Wayland, New York.
Hard Copy Recycling, Longmont, Colorado.
Harter, Chicago, Illinois.
Haworth, Inc., Holland, Michigan.
Herman Miller, Inc., Zeeland, Michigan.
Holga, Inc., Van Nuys, California.
Hon Industries, Inc., Muscatine, Iowa.
Horace Small Apparel Company, Nashville, Tennessee.
Horn & Associates, Chicago, Illinois.
Howe Furniture Corporation, Trumbull, Connecticut.
Indiana Furniture Industries, Jasper, Indiana.
Industrial Fabrics Association International, Washington,
D.C.
Industrial Safety Equipment Association, Arlington,
Virginia.
Innospace, Inc., Arlington, Virginia.
Integra, Inc., Walworth, Wisconsin.
Interior Design Services, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida.
Interior Dynamics, Troy, Michigan.
Interior Elements, Inc., Columbia, Maryland.
Interior Marketing Group, Belair, Maryland.
Interior Showplace, Honolulu, Hawaii.
International Hand Protection Association, Bethesda,
Maryland.
International Interior Design Association, Chicago,
Illinois.
Interstate Companies of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Inwood Office Furniture, Jasper, Indiana.
Ivan Allen Company, Huntsville, Alabama.
JG/ALMA, High Point, North Carolina.
Jopco, Inc., Jasper, Indiana.
Jones Vision Center, East Lansing, Michigan.
Keystate, Inc., Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
Kd Office Works, Hudson, New York.
Kimball International, Inc., Jasper, Indiana.
Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association, Reston,
Virginia.
Knoll, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Lancaster Office Equipment & Supplies, Lancaster,
Pennsylvania.
Laser Junction, Inc., Grand Junction, Colorado.
Laser Point, Denver, Colorado.
Laser Re-Nu, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona.
Lazertronix, Inc., Englewood, Colorado.
La-Z-Boy, Inc., Monroe, Michigan.
Leather-Link, Inc., High Point, North Carolina.
Leathercraft, Inc., Conover, North Carolina.
Liberia Mfg. Corp., Abbotsford, Wisconsin.
Loth MBI, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Management Association for Private Photogrammetric
Surveyors, Reston, Virginia.
Marvin J. Perry & Associates, Kensington, Maryland.
Mid-Michigan Stamps and Signs, Lansing, Michigan.
Machabee Office Environments, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Magna Design, Inc., Lynnwood, Washington.
Marco Co., Temecula, California.
Mark V Office Furniture Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The Marvel Group, Chicago, Illinois.
Maryland Business Interiors, Beltsville, Maryland.
McAllister Office Pavilion, Calabasas Park, California.
McCormack Design, McLean, Virginia.
McLain Group, Lanham, Maryland.
McNichol Associates, Stevensville, Maryland.
Midwest Office Environments, Inc., Topeka, Kansas.
Meier and Associates, Murrieta, California.
Meyer and Lundahl Manufacturing, Pine, Arizona.
MVR (Military Veterans-Retired), Savannah, Georgia.

[[Page S7166]]

NATCO, Inc., Lanham, Maryland.
National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, D.C.
National Association of Uniform Manufacturers and
Distributors, New York, New York.
Nello Wall Systems, Jessup, Maryland.
New Life Toner, Inc., San Antonio, Texas.
North West Woolen Mills, Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
Novikoff, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas.
Nucraft Furniture Co., Comstock Park, Michigan.
Office Concepts, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Office Interiors America, Omaha, Nebraska.
Office Interiors Plus, Lancaster, California.
Office Pavilion, Washington, D.C.
Office Pavilion/Contract Furnishers of Hawaii, Honolulu,
Hawaii.
Office Plus of Lake County, Waukegan, Illinois.
Omni International Inc, Vernon, Alabama.
Omnifics Inc, Alexandria, Virginia.
O'Brien Partition Co Inc, Kansas City, Missouri.
O'Sullivan Industries, Lamar, Missouri.
Panel Concepts Inc, Santa Ana, California.
Parker & Anderson, Manassas, Virginia.
The Pender Company, Abilene, Texas.
Performance Textiles Inc, Greensboro, North Carolina.
Power Plus Inc, Ormond Beach, Florida.
Progressive Technologies of America Inc, Chantilly,
Virginia.
Propper International Inc, St. Louis, Missouri.
Quarters Furniture Manufacturer's Association, Columbia,
Maryland.
R&R Uniforms, Nashville, Tennessee.
Rainbow Ink Jet LLC, Louisville, Colorado.
RCS Millwork Inc, Ankeny, Iowa.
Recycled Computer Cartridges, Loveland, Colorado.
Reesmar Sales & Millwork Corp, Hialeah, Florida.
Rosemount Office Systems, Lakeville, Minnesota.
Ryba's International, Hunt Valley, Maryland.
Salina Planing Mill Inc, Salina, Kansas.
Scott Rice of Kansas City Inc, Kansas City, Missouri.
Servicemax, Westminster, Colorado.
Sevea Staves, Clifton, Virginia.
Shelton Keller Group, Austin, Texas.
Small Business Association of Michigan, Lansing, Michigan.
Small Business Legislative Council, Washington, D.C.
Source International, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts.
Southwest Contract Sales, Eddy, Texas.
Star Fitness Center, Marshall, Michigan.
Steelcase Inc, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Superior Recharge Systems Inc, Dallas, Texas.
Sweeper Metal Fabricators Corporation, Drumright, Oklahoma.
Syspro, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
3P5 Inc, Littleton, Colorado.
Tab Products Co, Palo Alto, California.
Technique Mfg. Inc, Hutchinson, Kansas.
Texas Association of Cartridge Remanufacturers (TACR), San
Antonio, Texas.
TMI Systems Design Corp, Dickinson, North Dakota.
TR Manufacturing Inc, Lancaster, New York.
The Townsend Group, Lafayette, California.
Thomasville Office Furniture, Thomasville, Georgia.
Thosani Inc, West Berlin, New Jersey.
Transwall Corporation, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Trendway Corporation, Holland, Michigan.
Trussbilt Inc, New Brighton, Minnesota.
Tulsa Office Furnishings, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Tuohy Furniture Corporation, Chatfield, Minnesota.
UDI Corp, Springfield, Massachusetts.
U.S. Armor Corp, Santa Fe Springs, California.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
Valley Forge Flag Company Inc, Womelsdorf, Pennsylvania.
Vecta, Grand Prairie, Texas.
Versteel, Jasper, Indiana.
Vogel Peterson, Garden Grove, California.
Walsh Bros. Office Equipment, Phoenix, Arizona.
Washington Textile Environmental Council Gig Harbor,
Washington.
Waters Corporation, Melbourne, Florida.
We Wood Co, New Providence, New Jersey.
Western Government Supply, San Francisco, California.
Westin-Nielsen Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Wiley Office Equipment Company, Springfield, Illinois.
William H. Prentice Inc, Buffalo, New York.
Word Data Furniture Systems Inc, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Wyandot Seating, Bucyrus, Ohio.
Yorktowne Team Sports, Cockeysville, Maryland.
Mr. LEVIN. Finally, Mr. President, I want to just make reference to
two examples, two Federal agencies that believe the current system is
totally inefficient and wasteful.
First, the Veterans Administration has sought the repeal of the
mandatory preference on several occasions because Federal Prison
Industries pricing for textiles, furniture and other products is
routinely higher. The VA officials estimate that the repeal of the
preference will save $18 million over a 4-year period for their agency
alone, making that money available for veterans services.
Mr. President, the estimate that we have received based on testimony
from the deputy director of Defense Logistics in a 1996 letter to the
House of Representatives is that Federal Prison Industries has a 42-
percent delinquency rate. This is the deputy commander of the Defense
Logistics Agency. He says that FPI has a 42-percent delinquency rate
compared to a 6-percent delinquency rate for commercial industry--7
times the delinquency rate. And for that record of poor performance,
Federal Prison Industries prices were an average of 13 percent higher
than commercial prices.
I yield 1 additional minute to complete my statement here, Mr.
President.
Some years earlier, the DOD inspector general had made a similar
assessment and reached a conclusion that FPI contracts were more
expensive than contracts for comparable commercial products by an
average of 15 percent.
So here you have the Defense Logistics Agency in 1996 saying that the
prices were 13 percent higher than commercial prices. The DOD inspector
general a few years earlier in a study said comparable commercial
prices are 15 percent cheaper than Federal Prison Industries.
We are not suggesting in any way that Federal Prison Industries not
be allowed to compete. Quite the opposite. It is fine that they
compete, and it is fine that people are working. But it is also fine
that people work on the outside and they should not lose their jobs on
the outside when they can produce something more cheaply with all the
advantages that people have on the inside in terms of cheap labor. If
people working on the outside can produce a product more cheaply, for
heaven's sake, it seems to me fundamental fairness is that the person
not in prison be allowed to sell to his own Government a product that
he can produce more cheaply than can be produced inside of that prison.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have heard an interesting debate here
about competition when there is no competition. I would like to remind
my colleagues that prior to the Great Depression, we had the model
prison labor system in America. Prior to the Great Depression,
prisoners in America worked 10 hours a day 7 days a week. They paid for
substantial parts of their incarceration by working. They produced
goods and services that were sold, and people from all over the world
came to look at our prison system to try to model theirs after it.
In the Great Depression, special interest groups took control of this
issue and in three bills, the Hawes-Cooper Act of 1929, the Sumners-
Ashurst Act of 1935, and the Walsh-Healey Act of 1936, we, No. 1,
removed the interstate commerce protections for prison-made goods; No.
2, made illegal the interstate transportation of goods produced by
prison labor; and, finally, we prohibited the use of inmate labor. In
other words, in the Great Depression we criminalized prison labor in
America. As a result, we have the absurd situation that today we have
1,100,000 prisoners, State and Federal, most of whom are young men,
physically vigorous, on whom we are spending $22,000 a year to keep,
those who are in the Federal penitentiary, in the Federal penitentiary,
and yet it is illegal for us to require them to work when the average
taxpayer pays $200 a year for the cost of keeping them in prison.
All these people who are talking about competition are the very
people who oppose letting us have a system where prison labor works to
produce something of value that can be sold to

[[Page S7167]]

pay for their cost of incarceration. In fact, so much have we limited
prison labor in America that the only thing Federal prisoners are
allowed to do is to produce goods to sell to the Government, and, as a
result, hundreds of thousands of them sit idle watching color
television in air-conditioning while the back of working men and women
in America is broken in paying for them to be in prison.
We have an amendment that comes along now and says the only work
requirement we have is producing things for the Government and let us
end it. All of this business about competition would be believable if
there were a proposal here to let prison labor compete in the
marketplace, but that has already been eliminated. This is a final
effort to end prison labor in America.
Let me touch on a few of these issues. First of all, there is a big
dispute about the facts here, a big dispute about the facts, which is
why I have offered a second-degree amendment. If we listen to Senator
Levin, we get the idea that everybody is unhappy with the products
produced by prison labor, that they are noncompetitive in price, and
that everybody would like to have an alternative.
The facts are that during fiscal year 1996, Federal Prison Industries
received more than $446 million in waiver requests. These are
Government agencies that say we do not want to use prisonmade goods. We
want to go into the private sector. Of those requests, 92 percent or
$410 million were granted, and those contracts went into the private
sector. And the average amount of time that it took to get those
requests approved was 4 days.
So something is wrong here. Either these figures from the Bureau of
Prisons are wrong or Senator Levin is wrong. The problem is I have
great confidence in both, and what I have done is offer an amendment to
get the facts, to do a study that would involve the Bureau of Prisons
and their work program and the Defense Department so that we can know
exactly what the facts are.
Here is how the system works. The current system works in that the
Government uses prison labor where the Government agrees on the price
and where Government is given the ability to not use prison labor by
applying for a waiver, and in 92 percent of the cases that waiver was
granted.
What do we do with the money that comes from prison labor?
One of the things we do is we pay for victim restitution. By making
prisoners work, we earn money that goes to victim restitution.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter opposing the Levin amendment
from the National Victims Center be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

National Victim Center

Arlington, VA, July 10, 1997.
Senator Phil Gramm,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gramm: On behalf of the National Victim Center
and the 40 million Americans victimized by crime each year, I
write to express our strong opposition to Senator Carl
Levin's amendment (S. Amdt. No. 778) to be offered to S. 936,
the defense authorization bill, concerning purchases from
federal prison industries.
This amendment raises a panoply of concerns at both the
federal and state levels, and will literally take away
desperately needed funds for victims of crime who are trying
to piece their lives back together in the aftermath of
violence.
At the state level, many states require a percentage of
money deposited into inmate accounts--including inmate
earnings from prison industries--to be collected to support
statewide funds for crime victim assistance programs as well
as to satisfy court-ordered restitution for victims. For
example, in California, during fiscal 1995-1996, the state
Prison Industry Authority (PIA) deducted 20% of the inmate
wages and transfers (or the balance of victim restitution
orders or court-ordered fines, whichever was less) to pay for
crime victim assistance programs and restitution orders. The
total PIA payroll for inmates during that year was $6.4
million 20% of which was authorized to be swept up by the
State of California to assist crime victims. To take away
those desperately needed victim assistance funds is a slap in
the face of the already wounded.
At the federal level, we are deeply concerned that the
Levin amendment would thwart the Federal Bureau of Prisons'
(BOP) efforts to collect an estimated $4-5 million from
prison industries each year, funds that are directly
deposited to the Crime Victims Fund, money that funds
thousands of victim services programs across the country, as
well as used to satisfy victim restitution orders.
We also have strong concerns that removing the federal
prison industries (sole-source) procurement requirement will
lead to increased prison idleness, affecting security issues
in prison and for all us. The Levin amendment, by introducing
competitive bidding into the procurement process, will not
increase prison work, but it will reduce prison work. The
amendment poses too great a risk that prison industries will
be unable to compete effectively. If the prison industries
cannot compete, corrections systems will have less money
coming into the prisons to fund expansion or additional
prison programs including prison industries, leading to
prison idleness and increased security risks.
Our concerns are shared by Aileen Adams, Director of Office
for Victims of Crime; Larry Meachum, Director of the
Corrections Office, Office of Justice Programs, Department of
Justice; and Dr. Kathleen Hawk, Director, Federal Bureau of
Prisons.
We strongly urge you to stand up for victims of crime and
oppose the Levin Senate Amendment No. 778 to the defense
authorization bill.
Sincerely yours,
David Beatty,
Director of Public Policy.

Mr. GRAMM. Let me read two paragraphs from this letter.

On behalf of the National Victims Center and the 40 million
Americans victimized by crime each year, I write to express
our strong opposition to Senator Carl Levin's amendment . . .
This amendment . . . will literally take away desperately
needed funds for victims of crime who are trying to piece
their lives back together in the aftermath of violence.

In other words, the money earned by having prisoners work we are
using in part to compensate victims. And the National Victims Center is
opposed to the Levin amendment because they are concerned about the
loss of restitution.
Let me also remind my colleagues that working prisoners is critically
important, and let me read you a couple of sentences from a letter we
received from the Assistant Attorney General.

Federal Prison Industries is the Bureau of Prisons' most
important, efficient and cost-effective tool for managing
inmates. It keeps inmates productively occupied and reduces
inmate idleness and the violence and disruptive behavior
associated with it. Thus, it is essential to the security of
Federal prisons and the communities in which they are located
and is essential to the safety of the Bureau of Prisons'
staff and inmates.

They go on to say that the findings are overwhelming that where we
make prisoners work and where they acquire skills in working, the
probability that they will get out of prison and go back and commit
other crimes falls dramatically.
I went through these numbers earlier today, but let me do it again.
In the State of South Carolina, ably represented by the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, those prisoners who participate in work in
prison industries have a probability of recommitting crimes that put
them back in prison of 2 percent. Those who do not work in prison
industries have a probability of ending up back in prison of 35
percent. Those numbers in Florida are an 11 percent recidivism rate,
that is, probability of ending up back in prison again after they get
out, for those who work in prison industries; 27 percent for those who
do not. In Wisconsin, it is 11 percent versus 22 percent; in Kentucky,
it is 36 versus 65 percent.
So, basically, this is not an issue of procurement efficiency. This
is an issue of whether or not we are going to end the last vestige of
prison labor in America. We ought to be debating opening up to allow
prison labor to produce component parts, to manufacture items that we
are currently importing, to produce things without glutting local
markets and driving down prices.
We ought to have a goal of putting prisoners to work 10 hours a day,
6 days a week, with a goal of having them fund at least half of their
cost of incarceration. That is what we ought to be debating. In fact, 2
years ago, we did debate it when I, as chairman of the subcommittee
with jurisdiction over the appropriations for prisons, tried to make
that change. And yet the same special interest groups, labor unions,
and manufacturers, who today want to kill the last vestige of prison
labor, said, ``no,'' let the average taxpayer spend $200 a year keeping
people in prison but don't let the inmates work and produce anything of
value and sell it.
I think this is a ridiculous position to be in. I think it hurts our
criminal

[[Page S7168]]

justice system. I think it increases recidivism, where people get out
of prison and they don't have the discipline of having worked, they
don't have any skills, and they go out and recommit crimes.
So, what the Levin amendment would do is say let's stop prison labor
so there is then nothing left of a system that once had virtually every
person in prison working. I think this is a bad amendment. I have
offered a second-degree amendment to get the facts, and I reserve the
remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Who yields time? The Senator from
Michigan has 5 minutes 8 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the 5 minutes 8 seconds to my dear colleague.
Mr. ABRAHAM. May I ask how much time is left on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has exactly 1 minute
remaining.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to be very explicit about both my
position on the issue of prisoners working as well as what the intent
of this amendment is that I am a cosponsor of. First of all, I believe
prisoners should work. I am not for a no work policy. I support many of
the ideas that are embraced by the Senator from Texas in his previous
efforts to expand the type of work that prisoners do.
Second, this amendment is not a prisoners-don't-work amendment. The
only conditions where prisoners stop working would be if the Federal
Prison Industries are operating at an uncompetitively high level of
price for the products that they produce. If that is true, then what it
means is that the taxpayers are subsidizing the work of the Federal
Prison Industries by allowing that operation to basically function at
an above-market cost.
If that is true, then the Senator from Texas should be on our side
with respect to this amendment because it would mean that not only are
the taxpayers paying for the costs of running prisons and the
incarceration, it would mean they are also paying extra for these
products that are manufactured in the prisons. They are paying both
through the front door and through the back door. If our goal here is
to not have the taxpayers continue to subsidize at such a significant
level the efforts and activities of those in prison, it would seem to
me the direction we are seeking to move makes a lot of sense because it
will drive down the cost to the taxpayers of the goods and services
produced by the Federal Prison Industries or by others who would
compete with them. In fact, if we are going to go ahead and subsidize
the work done in the prisons, at least we ought to take a step of
subsidizing work that doesn't compete with that performed already by
people in the private sector in this country.
All we are asking for with this amendment is a level playing field to
allow manufacturers to compete with the Federal Prison Industries for
Government contracts. I think it would be incongruous for us to go in a
direction in which we would continue to subsidize, through taxpayer
moneys, products that are overpriced. It just does not make sense. We
talk here all the time about trying to save money. This is one way that
we would, I think, generate the kind of lower cost of Government that
we all profess to support.
My point is very simple. I am not opposed to the broad concepts that
the Senator from Texas has outlined. I am very comfortable with them. I
think prisoners should work. I think we should find ways to make the
industries in the prisons focus on areas that do not compete with the
private sector in our States. But what really is very hard for me to
explain to my constituents is why they should send their tax dollars to
Washington to then be spent in support of the Federal Prison Industries
to buy the goods and the services of the prison industries, to then put
them out of jobs. That seems to me to be the least sensible course for
us to take.
So I strongly support this amendment. I have no trouble with the
notion of getting more facts, but I think that really is just an effort
to delay this.
I think we may have another speaker here, so I am going to yield the
floor. I appreciate the efforts of those who are pressing for the Levin
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator Kempthorne has the remainder of our
time. How much is that?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho will have 1 minute 20
seconds.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I listened to the very good remarks of
the Senator from Texas and I agree wholeheartedly with the Senator from
Texas when he says we ought to open up Prison Industries to further
opportunities. I will join the Senator from Texas in seeking every
opportunity to do that, because prisoners should be working.
These prisoners that he referenced should not be sitting in the air-
conditioned cells watching color TV all day with three square meals and
everything else given to them while they are giving nothing back as far
as contributing to society. So we should have these opportunities.
But the key word that is left out is competition. They ought to do it
competitively. There is no reason in the world why we should have these
jobs being done in the prisons and the product produced that then has
to be subsidized. I think we have the intelligence within our prison
management that we can have them produce that product but it can still
be competitive in the marketplace. I know that is something the Senator
from Texas understands, is good competition.
So I support the amendment offered by Senators Levin and Abraham, and
will support them, but will also look for those opportunities with the
Senator from Texas to find ways of expanding Prison Industries so we
can have more jobs among prisoners.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time under the control of the Senator from
Michigan has expired. The Senator from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me first say I appreciate our colleague
from Idaho. I don't doubt what he says is true. But as a person who has
now fought for 13 years to change laws that prohibit prison labor, let
me assure you that special interest groups in America are not about to
let that happen. What we are about to do here in the name of good
government is to end what little prison labor we have left.
It is true that it is inefficient to work prisoners. It is also true
that we pay them virtually nothing. But with the money they get by
working, they are able to pay restitution to victims, we are able to
recoup some of our costs, and the bottom line is, whether we like it or
we don't like it, we have 1,100,000 people in prison who basically have
nothing to do because we have made it illegal for them to work. What
this amendment is going to do is destroy the last Federal system where
we are able to work prisoners in America. We hear all these horror
stories, but the plain truth is the law requires that prisons do this
competitively. We have a system where you can ask for waivers if you
don't want to buy from prisons, and 92 percent of those waivers are
granted.
What we are seeing here is not any protest from the Defense
Department. We are seeing those who want to end this system so that
they can expand their businesses. Those are good and noble objectives,
but we want to work prisoners and we want to have restitution to people
who are victims of crime. So I urge my colleagues to vote down this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on this amendment.
Under the previous unanimous consent agreement, the amendment will be
temporarily set aside. The Senator from California, Senator Boxer, will
be recognized to offer an amendment regarding the effect of executive
compensation. The time is 1 hour 20 minutes equally divided in the
usual form.
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from California will yield for a
unanimous-consent request?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael
Franken, a legislative fellow in Senator Kennedy's office, be granted
the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the consideration of
the defense authorization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7169]]

The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, I then
ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 4 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.

Amendment No. 644

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would just like to draw attention to
something I think is very significant that happened last night among
this body. That is, by a voice vote this Senate of the United States
has continued to correct something in history that should have been
corrected long ago.
As you know, in January of this year, seven Americans were recognized
for their heroic efforts in World War II, but it had been 50 years
before the Government acknowledged those heroic deeds and 50 years for
those individuals to have to wait until they were given the
Congressional Medal of Honor.
Senator Craig and I attended the White House ceremony in January of
this year, where the names of those seven were announced. I say the
names because they were not all there. In fact, the only living
individual that was there was Vernon Baker, of St. Maries, ID, who was
a lieutenant at the time in World War II.
The effort that we undertook yesterday, which was significant and
which is cosponsored by Senators Craig, Torricelli, Thomas, and Enzi,
provides Lt. Vernon Baker and the surviving spouse and/or children of
S. Sgt. Edward A. Carter, Jr. and Maj. Charles L. Thomas with the
financial benefits normally given to recipients of the Congressional
Medal of Honor. The other Medal of Honor recipients, S. Sgt. Ruben
Rivers, 1st Lt. John R. Fox, Pfc. Willy F. James, Jr., and Pvt. George
Watson were all killed in action performing acts of heroism and had no
surviving family members.
All seven of these Americans, these seven who for 50 years the
Government did not acknowledge their heroic acts by bestowing upon them
the Congressional Medal of Honor, were African-Americans. No African-
American had received the Congressional Medal of Honor in World War II.
That has now been rectified; rightfully so.
At the ceremony, as they called the names of those individuals that
had been killed in action, I remember what effect it had upon me that
there was no living relative there to receive the award in their
behalf. Then I realized, for those who were killed in action, many were
so young, teenagers--each performing that act where he sacrificed his
life--they didn't have time to be married and they certainly didn't
have time, therefore, to have a family, raise a family. They sacrificed
not only their own lives for their Nation, but they sacrificed the
potential of a family for this Nation.
Mr. Vernon Baker is just a tremendous individual. To meet him is an
honor. He is one of the most genuine people you will ever meet. His
actions on the mountains of Italy taking strategic positions,
repeatedly risking his life to save the lives of others, is really the
essence of what this is all about. So, the amendment that we passed
last night again simply states that those individuals will receive the
stipend that goes to Congressional Medal of Honor winners after they
retire from the military service. The history of World War II was not
complete, and it was not correct, until these heroes were rightfully
honored and the next step taken of providing them what they have earned
through their bravery and the blood that they gave to this Nation.
That has now been corrected. History can now be complete and correct
in this regard as to World War II.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Idaho leaves, I
want to thank him for the leadership which he showed in bringing this
amendment to the floor. It was the right thing to do. It was a
sensitive thing to do, and as chairman of our Personnel Subcommittee
where he does such tremendous work on the Armed Services Committee, he
has shown these qualities in many, many ways before and will as long as
he is in the Senate.
I think we are all in his debt for bringing to our attention the fact
that these particular heroes had not been recognized in this way until
last night, and it was because of Senator Kempthorne's efforts that
that recognition so long deserved was finally given. I know I am
speaking for all the Members in this body in thanking him for that
leadership.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Senator from Michigan for those kind
remarks.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you. I was very pleased to yield to
my friend from Idaho, and I appreciate his remarks.

Amendment No. 636

(Purpose: To amend title 10, United States Code, to make reimbursement
of contractors for costs of excessive amounts of compensation for
contractor personnel unallowable under Department of Defense contracts
and other contracts)

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 636.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr.
Grassley, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 636.

Mrs. BOXER. 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:

Strike out section 804, and insert in lieu thereof the
following:

SEC. 804. REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION OF DEFENSE
CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL PROHIBITED.

(a) Excessive Compensation as Not Allowable as Contract
Costs.--Subsection (e)(1) of section 2324 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(P) Costs of compensation paid with respect to the
services of any one individual, to the extent that the total
amount of the compensation paid in a fiscal year exceeds the
rate of pay provided by law for the President.''.
(b) Definitions.--Subsection (l) of such section is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(4) The term `compensation', for a fiscal year, means the
total amount of wages, salary, bonuses and deferred
compensation for the fiscal year, whether paid, earned, or
otherwise accruing, as recorded in an employer's cost
accounting records for the fiscal year.
(b) Certain Compensation Not Allowable as Costs Under Non-
Defense Contracts.--(1) Subsection (e)(1) of section 306 of
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
(41 U.S.C. 256) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(P) Costs of compensation paid with respect to the
services of any one individual, to the extent that the total
amount of the compensation paid in a fiscal year exceeds the
rate of pay provided by law for the President.''.
(2) Such section is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(m) Other Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `compensation', for a fiscal year, means the
total amount of wages, salary, bonuses and deferred
compensation for the fiscal year, whether paid, earned, or
otherwise accruing, as recorded in an employer's cost
accounting records for the fiscal year.
(c) Effective Date.--(1) The amendments made by this
section shall take effect on the date that is 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply with
respect to payments that become due from the United States
after that date under covered contracts entered into before,
on, or after that date.
(2) In paragraph (1), the term ``covered contract'' has the
meaning given such term in section 2324(l) of title 10,
United States Code, and section 306(l) of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C.
256(l)).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment today, and I am
very proud it is coauthored by the two Senators from Iowa, Senator
Grassley and Senator Harkin. This amendment, I think, is a good-
government amendment. It is, in many ways, a reform amendment, and it
not only applies to the Defense Department but it would apply
Governmentwide.
What we do is permanently cap taxpayer-funded compensation, in other
words, taxpayers' funds that go to pay the salaries of contractors, at
the same amount as the salary of the President of the United States.
I want to repeat that. Right now, because of loopholes in past
amendments we have brought before the Senate, executives and companies
who contract with this Government have no limit on

[[Page S7170]]

what they can get from the Government. So taxpayers are funding
salaries of $500,000 a year, $800,000 a year, $1 million a year. As a
matter of fact, we have one report of one company which spread around
$33 million in compensation to its executives.
This amendment will ensure that taxpayers are no longer forced to
foot the bill for exorbitant salaries of contractor executives.
It is important to understand what the bill does not do. Our
amendment does not limit the salaries of contractor executives. It only
limits the taxpayer portion of their salaries. So if there is a
contractor executive, whether it is defense or anywhere else in the
Federal Government, who is contracting with the Federal Government, we
are saying in 1 year, the maximum pay they can get from Federal
taxpayers is equal to that pay of the President of the United States,
or $200,000. But if they have business from the private sector and they
want to pay their executive any level, that is fine with us. We are
just saying no more than $200,000 a year for a contractor executive.
Our amendment has been endorsed by Taxpayers for Common Sense, and
today I placed a letter on the desks of Senators. I want to read from
it.
The letter goes to all Senators, and it says:

Support the Boxer-Grassley-Harkin amendment. Taxpayers for
Common Sense supports the Boxer-Grassley-Harkin amendment to
the DOD authorization bill to limit taxpayer reimbursement
for defense contractors executive compensation. Passage of
this amendment would provide a consistent and uniform
standard to defense contractors on executive compensation.
Since Fiscal Year '95, the issue of executive pay has seen
much legislative action. In '95, Congress limited the
reimbursable compensation on some contracts. The DOD
Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year '96 limited some
compensation but only for the final third of the fiscal year.

And so what they say to us in this letter is that the GAO report
revealed that one contractor paid its top executives more than $33
million in compensation over the $250,000 limit because there were
loopholes within the legislation.

Taxpayers for Common Sense urges all Members of the Senate
to support the Boxer-Grassley-Harkin amendment to limit this
compensation. It is a step toward fiscal responsibility.

Mr. President, we certainly know that one of our proudest
accomplishments as a Congress is bringing down this Federal deficit,
and we do it in many ways. One of the ways we have done it, frankly, is
that we have been pretty tough on Federal pay. We have wonderful men
and women working for the Federal Government, and many of them, doing
the work of private sector executives and private sector workers, get
much less. They love their jobs, they work hard, and they have had to
make some sacrifices. But somehow, it seems to me, we ought to ask
those who contract with the Federal Government to make a little
sacrifice. Frankly, I don't think it is bad to get the same pay as the
President of the United States. I think that is pretty good pay, and
that is what the Boxer-Grassley-Harkin amendment does.
So Congress has, in fact, scrutinized this issue before. We have been
outraged about it before, but we haven't resolved this problem. We keep
passing limited caps, and they are not working. We took them as first
good steps, but they were sporadic. We suspected their effectiveness
would be very limited, and the GAO report confirmed our worst fears.

We already talked about one major contractor who paid its top
executives more than $33 million over the then $250,000 limit. The GAO
concluded that that particular billing was allowable because the 1995
cap had so many loopholes. In fact, less than 1 percent of all
contracts were covered by the 1995 caps. It seems to me, as we look
back on what we did, it sounded good, but it didn't work, and we tried
to control executive pay for these contractors, but we didn't succeed.
We believe that the Boxer-Grassley-Harkin amendment will close that
loophole very, very clearly, and that is why we received support from
Taxpayers for Common Sense. We need a clear and consistent uniform
standard on executive compensation, and that is exactly what our
amendment would do.
I commend the Senate Armed Services Committee for its good-faith
effort to address this issue in the DOD authorization bill. The
committee acknowledged that the current system doesn't work, and it
wisely rejected an administration compensation proposal that would
continue to permit millions of dollars for executive pay. However, I
suggest that the committee's approach, while moving in the right
direction, doesn't go far enough.
The committee proposal would limit reimbursable compensation to the
medium level of pay for all senior executives at large public
companies. I don't think we should tie the pay of executives who get
paid by taxpayers to the pay of executives who get paid in the private
sector. Where is the common sense on that? I think we are going to hear
arguments such as, ``Well, these Federal contractors are not Federal
employees; after all, they could go to a private sector company.''
Fine, so could Federal employees. That is no argument. This is about
taxpayer money, Mr. President. This is about fiscal discipline. This is
about trying to balance the budget and not doing it on the backs of
just one group of people. This isn't right. The sacrifices have to be
shared.
So the committee proposal sets what they call reasonable executive
compensation through a formula based on the salaries of other wealthy
private sector executives. I just think that is a faulty approach, and
it is business as usual.
It makes more sense to use public sector salaries, Federal Government
salaries to set the compensation from taxpayers. After all, for their
work on Government projects, contractors become, in effect, Government
employees, and I can't imagine how we could rationalize paying them
more than the President of the United States.
A second problem with the committee proposal is that it is limited to
the five highest ranking executives of each contractor. First, it has a
level of pay that is way more--way more--than the President of the
United States and, second, it places no limits on the other senior
executives, just five in each contractor. So there are ways to get
around it.
Under the committee bill, a high ranking executive could continue to
bill multimillion-dollar salaries and bonuses to the taxpayer if he or
she was not named as one of the five most senior at the company. You
can see that game being played.
Our amendment is simple, it is clear. It says in one fiscal year,
taxpayers can't pay a salary higher to the contractor than it pays to
the President of the United States. I think that is a pretty good
linkage for these contractors to be hooked to the salary of the
President of the United States.
Again, we don't limit the total an executive can make, only the total
they can make from taxpayers. If there are two sides to their business
and they are working for taxpayers and they have other projects, they
can get paid whatever the company decides to pay them, but not the
portion from the taxpayers.
I am very proud to be working with my friend, Senator Grassley. When
I was in the House and he came over to the Senate, he and I teamed up
on many occasions on procurement reform. We worked together on spare
parts that were costing a fortune, those days of the $7,000 coffee pots
and the $400 hammers and the $600 toilet seats. We worked very hard on
those issues. We worked very hard to stamp out taxpayer fraud.

So it is just with great joy that I work with him, again, on this. I
think it is a good, solid amendment. We are proud of the support we are
getting. I yield as much time as he might consume to my friend, the
Senator from Iowa [Senator Grassley].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank you very much. I ask if the Presiding Officer
would remind me when I have used 20 minutes so I don't use too much
time.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of
my staff, Mr. Charles H. Murphy, be granted privilege of the floor
during consideration of this defense authorization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment
with my friend from California, Senator Boxer. Over the years, as she
has

[[Page S7171]]

already indicated, we have worked together as a watchdog of the
Pentagon, and being a watchdog of that agency is not an easy job.
Whether Republicans or Democrats are running this place, it is always
tough when we tangle with the Pentagon. It is not a very popular thing
to do.
Senator Boxer has always been a reliable person to fight to get the
most bang for the taxpayers' dollars in defense. And I compliment her
on that.

In today's political environment, reliable defense reform allies are
hard to come by. They are somewhat of an endangered species today
compared to 10 years ago. Organizations like the Center for Strategic
and Budget Assessments used to support our cause. Not anymore. That
organization is now bankrolled by the industry and by the Defense
Department itself. So we are kind of teaming up with less outside
support than we have had in the past. But we still have the same
challenges to meet, and we are going to meet those.
So I am happy to once again team up with Senator Boxer, this time on
a specific provision, very targeted, very easy to understand, but one
that is very important that we accomplish. That is the executive
compensation issue. We worked together on this in years past. And I am
glad to do it. We have also my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, as
a cosponsor. I am glad to have him on board as well. So this is very
much a team effort.
Mr. President, there are four separate executive compensation caps in
law today.
I have a table that provides details on each of these caps.
I ask unanimous consent that that be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

RELEVANT DOD COMPENSATION CAPS PROVIDED IN LAW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
year Act Cap type contract Compensation FAR/DFARS reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995...... Approp................ $250,000 DOD.............. Undefined (applied to DFARS 231.205-6
total). (a)(2)(i)(A).
1996...... Approp................ $250,000 DOD.............. Undefined (applied to DFARS 231.205-6
total). (a)(2)(i)(B).
1997...... Approp................ $250,000 DOD.............. Undefined (applied to DFARS 231.205-6
wages + elective (a)(2)(ii).
deferrals).
1997...... Auth.................. $250,000 DOD and civilian. Wages + elective DFARS 231.205-6
deferrals. (p)\1\ FAC 90-45.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FY97 FAR interim rule applies to top 5 senior officers.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Armed Services Committee is trying very hard in
this legislation to blow the lid right off the caps with section 804 of
the bill. The committee wants to reach deeper into the taxpayers'
pockets by doing this. I do not understand why, and I want to know why.
What is the basis for the decision? I know during this debate we are
going to find that out. I know sincere people on the other side of the
aisle are going to tell us the justification for it, but I want to tell
my colleagues why I think the legislation is wrong.
Because before we give executives a pay raise, we should know how
much public money they get in the first place. That is where this
debate should begin. That is taking us right back to square one. We
cannot figure out where we need to go until we know where we are. And
we do not know where we are on this subject of executive pay.
The committee made the decision to lift the caps and, I think,
without the facts. The committee needs to answer a key question. How
much is the Department of Defense paying industry executives today? The
committee does not have the answer to that question.
Back in January, Senator Boxer and I tried to get that answer. We
asked the General Accounting Office to answer three questions. How much
is the Pentagon paying the top 50 industry executives today? How well
are the caps working?
I ask unanimous consent that our letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, January 28, 1997.
Mr. James F. Hinchman,
Acting Comptroller General, U.S. General Accounting Office,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Hinchman: We are writing to request specific
information on executive compensation provided under
Department of Defense (DOD) contracts.
On April 28, 1995, we asked the Inspector General, Ms.
Eleanor Hill, for specific information on payments to
Lockheed-Martin executives following the merger of these two
industry giants. We wanted to know exactly how much each
executive would get under the merger deal. Finally, on June
14, 1996, after repeated requests and the passage of over a
year's time, we received a partial but unsatisfactory
response to our question. It does not provide the specifics
we requested. A copy of her response is attached for your
information.
We have two concerns about Ms. Hill's response.
First, she reports that Lockheed Martin Corporation
maintains that individual compensation data is ``confidential
proprietary and management sensitive,'' and she agrees. We
agree that a company's internal pay structure should be
treated as sensitive, propriety information--if that is
company policy. However, when money is drawn from the U.S.
Treasury to pay certain industry executives, those payments
should not be drawn under that protective cover. A private
company should never be allowed to take public money
specifically earmarked for executive pay and stamp it
``proprietary.'' If these individuals are on the public
payroll, then the citizens of this country have a right to
know how much of their tax money each one is receiving.
Second, we were also told that the $16.3 million paid to
the Martin Marietta executives was not salary. These are
retirement benefits. We were told that their salaries were
paid out of another ``DOD pool of money.'' How many pools of
money does DOD have for the corporate executives? We need to
know. We need a complete and accurate accounting that tells
us exactly how the department goes about paying these
executives all this money.
Toward that end, we ask that you tell us exactly how much
the department paid to the top 50 defense industry executives
during calendar year 1996.
For each executive, we ask for the full name, title and
employer, and the total compensation received from DOD,
including salary, bonuses, and other incentives and benefits,
from all sources. If commercial or foreign military sales
dollars are involved, those should also be reflected in the
requested totals.
An interim response is requested by March 1, 1997.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
U.S. Senator.
Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senator.

Mr. GRASSLEY. We need the answers to these questions, and the answers
are not easy to get. We got some answers in June, but not the answers
that we expected, Mr. President. The General Accounting Office reports
the caps are having ``no significant effect on limiting executive
compensation.''
The General Accounting Office did take a close look at one company,
McDonnell Douglas. The top executives at McDonnell Douglas got $33
million over and above the $250,000 cap that is in law. That is, of
course, all from the U.S. Treasury and all for 1 year. Only $313,000 of
the McDonnell Douglas executive pay--that is less than 1 percent--was
blocked or affected by the cap.
I ask unanimous consent that that General Accounting Office report be
printed in the Record so my colleagues can read it for themselves and
not just take my word for it.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC, July 8, 1997.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Hon. Tom Harkin,
U.S. Senate.

Subject: Impact of legislative compensation caps on DOD
contracts.

In response to your request, we have developed information
on the extent to which legislative caps have affected
executive compensation allowable under Department of Defense
(DOD) contracts. Specifically, we obtained compensation costs
from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) for McDonnell
Douglas Corporation for 1995, the latest year of a completed
DCAA incurred cost audit. We also obtained from DCAA nine
other contractors' estimates of the impact of legislative
compensation caps on their companies. On June 3, 1997, we
briefed your staff on the results of our work. This report
summarizes the information provided at that briefing.

[[Page S7172]]

background

The Congress has placed various limitations on the amount
of compensation costs that may be allowed on defense
contracts.
The fiscal year 1995 DOD Appropriations Act (P.L. 103-335)
provided that ``After April 15, 1995, none of the funds
provided in this act may be obligated for payment on new
contracts on which allowable costs charged to the government
include payments for individual compensation at a rate in
excess of $250,000 per year.''
The fiscal year 1996 DOD Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-61)
provided that, ``None of the funds provided in this Act may
be obligated for payment on new contracts on which allowable
costs charged to the government include payments for
individual compensation at a rate in excess of $200,000 per
year after July 1, 1996 . . . ''
The fiscal year 1997 DOD Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-208)
provided that, ``None of the funds provided in this Act may
be obligated for payment on new contracts on which allowable
costs charged to the government include payments for
individual compensation at a rate in excess of $250,000 per
year.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A statutory compensation limitation was also imposed by
the Fiscal Year 1997 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L.
104-201) on both DOD and civilian government agencies, but
this limitation affected fewer executives than that imposed
by the Fiscal Year 1997 DOD Appropriations Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESULTS IN BRIEF

The information we collected on McDonnell Douglas
Corporation and nine other contractors indicated that the
compensation cap imposed on DOD contractors for fiscal year
1995, had no significant effect on limiting executive
compensation charged to defense contracts for 1995. For
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, which had about $33.7 million
in executive compensation in excess of $250,000, only about
$313,000, or less than 1 percent, is estimated to be limited
by the fiscal year 1995 compensation cap. Estimates by the
nine other defense contractors of excess compensation costs
subject to the fiscal year 1995 compensation cap range from
0.14 to 3 percent. The limited impact of the legislative
compensation cap was primarily due to the short period the
cap was in effect during 1995 (5\1/2\ months) and the small
amount of costs associated with new contracts entered into
during this period using fiscal year 1995 appropriations.
For some of the same reasons, the amount of executive
compensation charged to defense contracts in fiscal year 1996
will not be significantly affected, although the amount
determined to be unallowable will increase because both the
fiscal year 1995 and 1996 limitations were in effect.
McDonnell Douglas Corporation estimates that only about 3
percent of 1996 executive compensation in excess of the cap
will be subject to the fiscal year 1995 and 1996 compensation
caps. Aggregated data on the effect of the 1997 cap was not
available at the time of our review. Enclosure I contains
more information on our findings.

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION

DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report.
DOD took no exception to the information provided in the
report regarding the allowable cost impact of the statutory
compensation caps. However, it commented on the substantial
administrative burden imposed on both DOD personnel and
defense contractors by the inconsistencies between the four
different compensation caps enacted by the Congress over the
past 3 years.
The nature and extent of the administrative burden was not
the focus of our review. However, DOD identifies a pertinent
issue. Generally speaking, it seems reasonable that more
consistent treatment of compensation caps could ease
implementation problems. DOD's comments are provided in
enclosure II.
We are providing copies of this correspondence to the
Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, and other appropriate congressional
committees and members. We will also make copies available to
others on request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-4587 if you or your staff
have any questions concerning this briefing report. Major
contributors to this report are Charles W. Thompson and
Robert D. Spence.

David E. Cooper,

Associate Director,
Defense Acquisitions Issues.
____

PERCENT OF MDC EXCESS COMPENSATION COVERED BY CAP IN FISCAL YEAR 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DCAA and
contractor
estimates of
Total amounts in
compensation excess of Percent
in excess of $250,000 subject to
$250,000 subject to cap
FY 1995
compensation
cap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters office............ $13,365,275 \1\ $178,855 1.34
Headquarters and component
offices....................... 33,748,375 \2\ 313,090 \3\ 0.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) recommended this amount based
on the results of its audit.
\2\ MDC components voluntarily removed this amount from overhead cost
submittals (subject to DCAA audit).
\3\ MDC estimates the percentage for 1996 to be less than 3 percent.

____
MDC 1995 compensation for top five executives

Executive \1\ Amount \2\
1............................................................$4,012,833
2.............................................................3,920,559
3.............................................................2,383,974
4.............................................................2,303,713
5.............................................................2,238,966
________________

Total..................................................14,860,045

\1\ Because these amounts differ from Securities and Exchange
Commission filings, MDC requested that the names of the executives not
be disclosed.
\2\ These amounts represent compensation as defined by the FAR and
differ from compensation reported in Securities and Exchange Commission
filings.
____

Other contractor estimates of excess compensation covered by cap in
1995

Contractor Percent of excess compensation
subject to cap
A..................................................................0.33
B..................................................................1.50
C..................................................................3.00
D..................................................................0.14
E..................................................................2.00
F..................................................................0.67
G..................................................................1.67
H..................................................................1.20
2.00.................................................................
____

MDC ALLOCATION OF COMPENSATION TO COMPONENTS--TOP FIVE EXECUTIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
compensation Amounts
for Total allocated
Executive application compensation to
of >$250,000 components
compensation with DOD
cap contracts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................. $4,012,833 $3,762,833 $2,713,308
2.............................. 3,920,559 3,670,559 2,646,773
3.............................. 2,383,974 2,133,974 2,046,481
4.............................. 2,303,713 2,053,713 1,833,604
5.............................. 2,238,966 1,988,966 33,216
----------------------------------------
Total.................... 14,860,045 13,610,045 9,273,382
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. GRASSLEY. One of the General Accounting Office tables shows how
much the Department of Defense paid the top executives at McDonnell
Douglas. The Department of Defense paid them a total of $9,273,382. The
top executive got $2,713,308. And I have the chart here so that you can
see that the cap is $250,000. We have the executive that I just
referred to as executive No. 1, because obviously we are not here to
embarrass anybody. It is proprietary information. The name does not
matter, but the point is, executive No. 1 got paid $2.7 million;
executive No. 2 got paid $2,646,773; the third executive got paid
$2,046,481; and the fourth executive got paid $1,833,604--all when
there is a cap of $250,000.
So that cap was designed to limit the size of the Department of
Defense paycheck that was sent to McDonnell Douglas for executive pay,
and yet we find the cap did not work.
Now, every citizen would like to get a paycheck like this from Uncle
Sam. This chart shows so obviously I do not even need to say it that
the existing caps are not working very well.
In fact, you would have to say they are leaking like a sieve. They
are riddled with loopholes the size you can drive a Mack truck through.
Maybe they were not meant to be that way. Maybe this was just a big
game that somebody is playing with the taxpayers. But we should not be
playing these games. And if these caps are not going to work, they
should not be in the law. That is what the committee would rather have.
I say they ought to be in the law, and I say they ought to work. If the
caps are being busted with regularity, we are here to fix them, and
that is what the Boxer-Grassley-Harkin amendment is all about.
Is the problem unique with McDonnell Douglas or are the caps leaking
everywhere? We do not know. The Department of Defense does not know.
The committee does not know. And, of course, to the taxpayers of this
country, that is just not acceptable. It happens to be the same old
story. The Department of Defense is paying bills for services rendered,
but it does not know what the services cost.
How could the Department of Defense watchdog the caps if it does not
know what each executive gets? There are a lot of questions, and there
are no answers.
Mr. President, the Department of Defense has a responsibility to the
taxpayers to answer four questions that I am going to bring out. First,
how much does it pay out each year for executive compensation?
Secondly, how many executives receive those payments? What are their
names? And how much does each one get?
I asked the Department of Defense these questions on June 20, 1997.
The Department of Defense response came back 4 days later, June 21 of
this year. And guess what the answer is? The Department of Defense does
not collect that kind of information. The Department of Defense does
not have it.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record those letters.

[[Page S7173]]

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, June 20, 1997.
Mr. Lawrence P. Uhlfelder,
Assistant Director for Policy and Plans, Defense Contract
Audit Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Dear Mr. Uhlfelder: I am writing to follow up on a question
my staff raised with you this morning regarding executive
compensation.
In order to prepare for the upcoming debate on the defense
authorization bill, I would like to know how much the
Department of Defense pays out each year to defense industry
to cover the costs of executive compensation. What is the
total estimated annual cost of those payments? How many
executives would be covered by such payments? How many
companies would receive those payments? Is this information
readily available, or is it very difficult to obtain? If so,
why? A ballpark estimate will be acceptable--if that's the
best you can do on short notice.
A response to these questions is requested by June 24,
1997.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
U.S. Senator.
____

Defense Contract Audit Agency,

Fort Belvoir, VA, June 24, 1997.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Grassley: In your June 20, 1997 letter to me
you asked the following questions:
How much does the Department of Defense (DoD) pay out each
year to the defense industry to cover the costs of executive
compensation?
What is the total estimated annual cost of those payments?
How many executives are covered by such payments?
How many companies receive those payments?
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) does not accumulate
statistics on the overall compensation paid to DoD contractor
executives or on any other individual element of overhead
because such statistics are unnecessary to determine cost
allowability under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
The FAR specifies that certain types of compensation costs
are expressly unallowable; e.g., stock options, stock
appreciation rights, and golden parachutes. These unallowable
types of compensation are never paid by DoD and are not
considered in judging reasonableness of compensation levels.
The FAR criteria for evaluating reasonableness of executive
compensation follows:
``Among others, factors which may be relevant include
general conformity with the compensation practices of other
firms of the same size, the compensation practices of other
firms in the same industry, the compensation practices of
firms in the same geographic area, the compensation practices
of firms engaged in predominantly non-Government work, and
the cost of comparable services obtainable from outside
sources. The appropriate factors for evaluating the
reasonableness of compensation depend on the degree to which
those factors are representative of the labor market for the
job being evaluated. The relative significance of factors
will vary according to circumstances.'' (Emphasis added.)
Since the determination of the reasonableness of
compensation costs requires a case-by-case assessment of many
factors, it would serve no useful purpose to routinely gather
DoD-wide data. Accumulating DoD-wide statistics would be
time-consuming and expensive because the precise dollar
reimbursement for each contractor is dependent upon many
company specific factors including:
The percentage of government business at each contractor
segment.
The mix of contract types (fixed price, cost-type, flexibly
priced) at each segment.
The status of contracts (e.g., salaries allocated to
contracts which have costs exceeding a ceiling price would
not be reimbursed).
The varying number of personnel that might be considered
``executives'' by each contractor.
The value of contracts subject to the compensation caps
included in recent DoD Appropriation and Authorization Acts.
Another key reason for not routinely gathering DoD-wide
compensation data is the FAR specifically requires comparison
of compensation levels of firms engaged in predominately non-
government work. DCAA uses commercial compensation surveys
that include companies engaged in non-government work.
Attached are letters to Dr. Steven Kelman, Administrator,
Office of Federal Procurement Policy and Mr. Peter Levine,
Counsel, Senate Armed Services Committee, that show various
average and median executive compensation levels based on a
commercial survey.
In sum, the routine gathering of DoD-wide compensation
statistics would be costly and not add value to the audit
process. Because we do not gather this data, we are unable to
answer your questions on such short notice. If you or your
staff have any additional questions, please call me at (703)
767-3280.
Sincerely,

Lawrence P. Uhlfelder,

Assistant Director,
Policy and Plans.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, maybe the Department of Defense does not
want to know the answer. The size of those paychecks might be
embarrassing to the Department. Then again, maybe the Department of
Defense does know. I suspect that they do know. I think there is a
secret list hidden in someone's safe over at the Pentagon somewhere
with this information.
I have an audit report that tells me that the Department of Defense
may know. This is a Defense Contracting Audit Agency report entitled
``Audit of Corporate Offices, Overhead Expenses 1995.'' Here it is. It
is dated March 31 of this year.
Now, Mr. President, I would like to place this report in the Record,
but I have been warned that it may contain proprietary company
information so I am not going to do that. It tells me exactly who is on
the Department of Defense payroll at McDonnell Douglas and how much
each person gets.
There must be reports like this on other companies as well. Taken
together, all these reports would give us the information that we need.
These executives are on the public payroll. They take public money. The
public should know who they are and how much they get. A company has no
right to take public money earmarked for executive pay and stamp it
``proprietary and confidential.''
Strictly, that is Pentagon baloney. That is something that if
somebody here on the Senate floor tries to justify, then it becomes
Senate baloney as far as I am concerned. The Congress has the
responsibility to obtain that information.
There are two ways to get it. We could put a provision in the bill.
It would call for a one-time report.
I have an amendment, No. 603, that would get that information we
need, or the committee, hopefully, is interested in this information,
letting the Sun shine in. Where the Sun shines in on Government
business, there is never going to be any mold, Mr. President. As an
oversight responsibility for the taxpayers, I hope that the committee
would be interested in requesting that information, not by my
amendment, but simply a letter sent to the Department of Defense to get
that information. I would hope that the committee would be willing to
send such a letter. Then the committee would hopefully be willing to
share this information to the taxpayers of this country.
I do not think that we should lift that cap without this information.
The bill lifts that cap. If the caps are not working, then we should
plug the leaks. And, of course, the Grassley-Boxer-Harkin legislation
plugs those leaks so that you do not have a situation like this, a cap
at $250,000 meant to restrict pay, but you have one executive with $2.7
million, a second executive with $2.6 million, a third executive with
$2.0 million, and a fourth executive with $1.8 million.
So I think we have made a case, first of all, that what we have done
has not worked. What we are going to do now should work. And the Boxer-
Grassley amendment does that.
I yield the floor and reserve the balance of the time for our side.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am controlling the time for the
majority on this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say first in response to the Senator from Iowa's comments
about the compensation levels of certain executives, No. 1, the
Grassley previous amendment only applied to cost-type contracts; it did
not apply to fixed-price contracts. When you negotiate a contract and
say, here is the price we are going to pay you, it is a fixed price,
and you produce the product for this price, we do not really care who
you pay or how much you pay, just as long as you give us the product at
this price. So they can pay their executives anything out of that as
long as they deliver the product as per the price.
Also these companies that have been listed by the Senator from Iowa,
many have very large and substantial commercial entities who are not
limited at

[[Page S7174]]

all to what they pay their executives on that. So to suggest that there
is some error here, some problem here, I just do not think is accurate.
I think it is accurate to suggest that this approach does not work and
is wrong, and I will go through as to why I believe it is. But to
suggest that there is something funny going on here, I think is simply
not accurate.
Let me first start by saying what the Subcommittee on Acquisition and
Technology did when it was presented with this issue. Last year, in the
authorization bill, we requested the administration to come up with a
suggestion on how to deal with this issue because the Congress every
year seems to deal with this issue of setting levels of caps on
compensation for, quote, ``executives.''
The administration came back with a suggestion. The suggestion had
four parts. No. 1 was to limit the reimbursement of senior executive
salaries to the median salary of executives in companies of similar
size. Now, what does that mean? They take the large corporations and
they figure out--they take the median salary of the large corporations,
then the medium size and the small, and they have different
compensation levels. The problem with that is that the committee saw
that for some corporations, the large ones, the average median
compensation was $4 million. To set a cost cap at $4 million does not
appear to be much of a cost cap, even to this Member who does not
particularly agree with the Senator from Iowa on compensation levels.
So we decided to go back and relook at that. They did do some things
that we adopted. No. 1, they defined executive compensation, which had
not been done before, and we have adopted that definition in the
committee's mark. I believe the Grassley-Boxer or Boxer-Grassley
amendment adopted that definition of compensation. So on that we agree.

We also disagree on the people that it should apply to. The
administration has suggested just the top five most highly paid
executives of the contractors should be limited here. The Boxer-
Grassley amendment covers everybody. I will explain later why I think
that is a problem.
Senator Lieberman and I, the ranking member on the subcommittee,
worked on what we thought was a compromise, something that was workable
and took care of the concerns that I will enumerate in a few minutes.
The compromise was to take the median salary of all companies who have
sales over $50 million. So if you have sales over $50 million and you
take the median salary from those executives, we came with a figure of
$340,000. So $340,000 would be the cap under ours. Now the
administration opposes this cap. The administration believes this is
too low. Now, what Senator Boxer and Senator Grassley are suggesting is
even going below what the administration believes is too low. But we
believe this is a reasonable level to go.
Now, why? Let me just explain what I believe is sort of the reality
of what this amendment is. This is a huge antismall business amendment.
Why? As you saw from Senator Grassley's chart, the big corporations do
not have any problem paying their executives, particularly ones that
are diversified, because they have price-type contracts, they have
commercial business, so they can pay their executives from a variety of
sources. The folks that really get nailed by this are the small
businesses who do primarily defense work. They are the ones whose
compensation is effectively capped at the level we set here.
You say, what is the big deal? The big deal is these small businesses
are in a very competitive industry and, yes, they are competing for
high-priced talent, not just in managerial, and we limit it to
managerial, the top five executives--but they compete even more
fervently. Remember, what are we moving to in the Defense Department?
We want high technology. We are drawing down our defense. We hope to be
investing more and more into high technology. We want our vendors to be
more efficient, more high technology.
I will read from the Information Technology Association, what they
suggest this amendment will do to, I believe, small contractors in
particular, and I will quote from a July 2 letter from the Information
Technology Association of America to the Chairman, Strom Thurmond.

It will limit the government's ability to contract for
personnel with specialty technology skills. A recently
completed Information Technology Association of America study
found that there are approximately 190,000 unfilled
technology positions nationwide, with almost 20,000 unfilled
positions just in the Washington metropolitan area. The
shortage is even more acute for people with cutting edge
skills who command far more than $200,000 in wage and
benefits in the marketplace.

What I am suggesting here that this amendment will do is it will not
hurt McDonnell Douglas, it will not hurt Boeing, it will hurt the local
organization in your community, the small business who is competing for
defense contracting work, trying to get the best technology available,
the highly skilled people who are in very competitive prices, and they
will not be able to employ them. They will not be able to keep them. I
am surprised some of the big businesses do not love this, that they are
not supporting the Grassley-Boxer amendment. This is a boon to big
business because it lets them cherry pick all these skilled people to
employ them at their business because the small contractors simply
cannot do it under this amendment.
Now we improve things a little bit. We allow them to go up to
$340,000. You hear $200,000 is the salary of the President. Well,
$200,000 is about one-quarter what a shortstop hitting .190 for the
Baltimore Orioles makes. If we are going to compare worth here, who is
more important to the future of our country--someone who will redesign
the air traffic control system in this country to make it safer and use
the high technology and the skills they have, or someone hitting .190
for the Pirates? I think the answer is pretty clear. But on this floor,
they are saying that guy hitting .190, we can pay him anything we want,
but the guy who has high technology skills, the guy who has the skills
that can add to the national security of this country, we cannot have.
They will go off to Hollywood and make movies. That is where they go.
They go to Hollywood and they make action pictures instead of
redesigning systems to make our Nation more secure for the future.
This is an unwise piece of legislation. This really does strike at
the core of what the future is for our country. I will be honest. I
frankly do not care if the CEO's of some companies do not make a lot of
money. What I do care about is that we have the scientific expertise
employed in the defense industry to move our country forward, to stay
ahead. This amendment will hurt national security. This amendment will
limit our ability to get the best and the brightest into the defense
industry and keep them there, particularly for the small
entrepreneurial companies and the small companies that get involved in
the defense industry. So this hurts national security. It devastates
small business' ability to compete. Just for those two reasons alone we
should be against this amendment.

I hope we do not get blinded by what appears to be populist. It looks
populist to say we should only pay certain people who get paid from the
Government a certain amount of money, except for the fact that when you
do that, you lose good people and you hurt small business, both of
which are vital to the national security of this country.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it was interesting to see the Senator from
Pennsylvania get very emotional about the fact that we would--Senator
Grassley and I and Senator Harkin--limit the taxpayer payments to
individual executives who are Federal contractors to the pay of the
President of the United States.
First of all, I am not sure he understands our amendment. We only
limit the taxpayer portion of their pay. If they work in the private
sector, that is up to the shareholders to determine, No. 1.
No. 2, the Senator from Pennsylvania says, ``My God, if we cannot get
these executives into these defense firms, these high-paid executives,
our national security is at stake. We better pay them more, much more
than the President of the United States.'' Let me just say, what about
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? He is a Federal employee. I
do not hear people coming in here and recommending that

[[Page S7175]]

his pay be raised. What about the person who is the head of the FAA?
What about the air traffic controllers?
We have people in the Federal Government who risk life and limb, but
we are here today hearing the committee defend executives in fancy
offices in big firms who contract with the Federal Government.
I ask the Senator from Iowa a question.
Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield on the time of the Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to take it off my time.
Does your amendment limit the cap just to executives?
Mrs. BOXER. Executive pay.
Mr. SANTORUM. Your amendment limits it just to executives?
Mrs. BOXER. It is any contractor.
Mr. SANTORUM. It does not limit just to executives?
Mrs. BOXER. Let me just say, since it is a $200,000 cap, it is hard
to imagine line workers making that much, but it affects anyone who is
working for the Federal Government as a contractor.
Mr. SANTORUM. Again I ask the question, does it apply to people who
are scientists, who, as the Information Technology Association of
America said, people with highly technical skills? Do they apply to
this cap?
Mrs. BOXER. Anyone who contracts with the Federal Government--let me
finish--would be limited----
Mr. SANTORUM. The answer is yes.
Mrs. BOXER. Limited to receive in 1 year the amount that the
President of the United States receives from taxpayers, but it could be
unlimited if they have private sector work. We do not take on their
entire pay. That is up to the shareholders of the company.
Mr. SANTORUM. Is the Senator aware there are many businesses that
contract with defense and other Government agencies that do primarily,
almost exclusively, Government work? Are you aware that there are many
companies involved that do that?
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my colleague, I have visited companies all over
California, many of whom do nearly 90 percent of their work with the
Federal Government, but that is their option, just as it is the option
of someone who works for the Federal Government to work for the private
sector.
Mr. SANTORUM. You then accept the fact that by limiting the
compensation to everybody, particularly those firms that do 90 or even
more percentage of their work with the Federal Government, you in
effect put a salary cap on everybody at that firm, even the scientists,
who they have to go out and compete for?
Mrs. BOXER. We are capping the amount of Federal taxpayer payments to
one individual, to that of the President of the United States, that is
correct.
Mr. SANTORUM. The answer is yes.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on my time, I ask the Senator from Iowa a
question.
As my friend noted in his opening statement, the GAO did a study and
this study was astounding.
I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record, Mr.
President.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

GAO/MDC 1995 COMPENSATION FOR TOP FIVE EXECUTIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive \1\ Amount \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... $4,012,833
2....................................................... 3,920,559
3....................................................... 2,383,974
4....................................................... 2,303,713
5....................................................... 2,238,966
---------------
Total............................................... 14,860,045
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because these amounts differ from Securities and Exchange Commission
filings, MDC requested that the names of the executives not be
disclosed.
\2\ These amounts represent compensation as defined by the FAR and
differ from compensation reported in Securities and Exchange
Commission filings.

Mrs. BOXER. We thought we put a cap in place, I say to my friend, and
yet we know in one company, executive No. 1--and we will not identify
that individual--in one defense company, earned $4 million in 1 year,
nearly all from taxpayers. Executive No. 2, $3.9 million, executive No.
3, $2.3 million, executive No. 4, $2.3 million, executive No. 5, $2.2
million, for a total among those five executives of $14.8 million.
I ask my friend from Iowa how he thinks the people in Iowa would
react when they learn that 1 executive got over $4 million in one
calendar year, in a year when, by the way, there were layoffs in that
company; if he could answer that. And also talk to me, if he would,
about the committee's proposal which they say would limit pay to
$350,000--if the Senator agrees with that.
If he could give me the reaction and then his opinion on the
committee's plan.
Mr. GRASSLEY. First of all, my constituents would expect that if
there is a cap in the law of the most that we will pay out of the
Federal Treasury to an executive of a major defense corporation, they
would expect that salary limit to be adhered to. Not as this chart
demonstrates--$250,000 cap, you end up with $2.7 million, $2.6 million,
$2 million and $1.8 million, and you gave figures for another
corporation that are higher than this. They would expect that cap to
work.
It is obvious that it is not working. If it is obvious it is not
working, the very committee that put the cap in place, they would
expect that oversight committee to fulfill its constitutional
responsibility and make sure that the law is abided by.
Also, your question gives me an opportunity to point out to our
friend from Pennsylvania, when he raised the question of this amount of
money, that we could expect executives to make this amount of money.
The point is this is just a portion of their salary that comes out of
taxpayers' dollars. He raised that question, and I want to clarify that
the $2.7 million, $2.6 million, $2 million, and $1.8 million is just
that portion of that executive salary out of tax money, out of Defense
Department money. As he indicated, they could get paid more, they get
that out of other sources of income for the corporation. The point is
this is just money from the taxpayers.
Lastly, my constituents raised the same questions as your
constituents might raise that it is a more moral and ethical issue here
of the extent to which we are having executives get big salaries and
people that are working and producing for that corporation on the
assembly line or someplace else, that there is a gigantic spread that
has developed within corporate America between what the blue-collar
worker might be getting paid or other lower paid professional people
versus what the executive is getting. I think there is a legitimate
question raised whether or not that is a justified gap. I think this
emphasizes that there is that gap over a long period of time.
Executives getting big pay raises and people lower down are just hardly
keeping up with inflation.
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, he makes a very important point. I am
troubled by the committee suggesting that their new policy would cap
pay at $350,000. I understand that my colleague has a chart which shows
different analyses of that, because I greatly question it. Last year,
we thought we were capping it at $250,000, and people got $4 million. I
wonder if my friend can share with us that chart, which shows opinions
other than the committee's opinion on where these caps will actually
fall--not at $350,000, but more into the millions.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, this chart refers to the figure that has been
given to us as the cap that might be effectively in place as a result
of section 804, $340,000.
In a practical world of paying executives, we have three estimates,
and these are very recent estimates from various publications just this
spring. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, had an average salary of
corporate executives of $1.5 million. The Forbes publication had an
average salary in their survey of $1.9 million. Business Week had an
average salary of $2.3 million. This would be total compensation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the CRS memo be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the memo was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[[Page S7176]]

[Transmittal from the Congressional Research Service, Library of
Congress, June 20, 1997]

To: Hon. Charles Grassley.
Attn: Charles Murphy.
From: Pat Ayers, Business Team, Congressional Reference
Division, Tel: 7-7492.
Re: Average Pay Statistics.
To summarize our telephone conversation of this morning, we
are unaware of any federal statistics which compile data on
corporate executive compensation by size of the business
establishment. There are several private organizations which
do survey the larger public corporations for executive
compensation data, including surveys by Business Week,
Forbes, and Fortune, which cover 800 to 1,000 of the largest
firms in the U.S. There is also no one set definition of what
constitutes a ``small business'', another impediment.
We have enclosed a brief CRS report which provides data
contrasting executive compensation with average worker pay,
which may give some insight. To update these figures, for
1996 the median annual earnings for CEOs was $1,471,250 (Wall
St. Journal-April 19, 1997), $1.9 million (Forbes-May 19,
1997) and $2.3 million (Business Week-April 27, 1997.) Median
annual earnings for full-time wage and salary workers in the
private nonfarm sector for 1996 is $24,500 (BLS-Employment &
Earnings: January 1997.)
We also searched our various news databases and did not
find any ``estimates'' offered. The National Federation of
Independent Business stated that they did not collect such
data from their membership.

Mr. GRASSLEY. It would be unrelated to the issue we have before us of
the defense industry, but it does tell me that the figure that the
committee feels will somehow be a cap for this year--and we want to
remember that it is suggested that this cap is going to go up from year
to year--that it is not going to be a very effective way of controlling
money leaving the Defense Department to the executives, as the
committee has intended. I think they are going to find this just as
ineffective as the cap that has been in the law, as I have demonstrated
in a previous chart that I have.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to say to my friend that I
really appreciate his coming up with those charts because taxpayers
thought a year ago that all this was taken care of. They honestly
thought a $250,000 cap would work. Now we see executives making $2
million, $3 million, $4 million, as if we didn't have a budget crisis
around this place. It is unreal.
Now we are told that the new committee policy will lead to a $350,000
cap by some fancy magic computation. I think what the Senator from Iowa
has shown us is a warning here. We don't want to come back next year
with more of these charts that say to our friends: You miscalculated it
and executives are getting $2 million a year from taxpayers. This is
wrong.
So I want to, again, thank my colleague very much for coauthoring
this amendment. I retain the remainder of my time.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from
Virginia may need.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will just use 2 minutes for the purpose
of posing a question. I pose the question to the sponsors of this
amendment.
First, having worked on the committee some 18 years, this is an issue
that has been visited and revisited very carefully through the years. I
am not here to criticize, but I assure you that the Armed Services
Committee reviews this matter with great care each year. But the
benefit to the American defense system is for a lot of small,
independent private-sector companies to come to the marketplace and
offer what is known as their best practices. I feel that this is going
to be a disincentive. I am sure my distinguished colleague from
Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, is going to touch on
this. I ask this question of you because I am going to ask it of him.
Would this not be a disincentive and thereby deprive the Department of
Defense, and the overall American defense system, of some of the best
technology and best management practices being offered?
Mr. GRASSLEY. For myself, I will answer that question very shortly
this way. First of all, we are only talking about the portion that is
going to come from the taxpayers. Second, we in no way in our amendment
limit executive salaries for corporations. In fact, it is none of our
business to do that. That is a market decision. We want that to be a
market decision, and nothing in our amendment keeps that from
happening.
The point is, how much should be paid out of the Treasury and how
much should be paid out of other income? That is a stockholders versus
CEO business relationship that we will not infringe upon. Our amendment
does not; we don't intend to. Both of us would say it would be wrong
for us to do that.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need.
I want to respond very briefly. The Senator from Iowa says it is a
market decision on how much people should be compensated. They use the
term ``executive compensation.'' This is not a limitation on that; it
is a limitation on anyone's compensation. They do not designate certain
executives, as we do in our underlying bill. We designate the top five
executives. They limit it to every person in the company, including
maybe that guy who sits in the cubical and doesn't come out very much
and drinks a lot of coffee, who makes the place run because he has all
the ideas. He may not be the executive, but he is the brains behind all
the research going on in that company. They limit him, too. Let's
understand that.

They said it is a market decision. Well, it is only a market decision
as to what you pay your people if you have other markets, because if
you are just in the defense market and have cost-type contracts, the
decision is made by the Senator from Iowa, not by the company, because
the Senator from Iowa will say, if your company does defense work and
you have cost-type contracts, you can only get paid this amount, no
matter whether everybody else--those brilliant technologists--get paid
a lot more somewhere else, like in Hollywood, which is where they will
go. It is not a market decision. It is in some cases, but not always,
and those are the cases I am most worried about.
The Senator from California is suggesting that I was concerned about
how much executives got paid. I said during my statement, and I will
repeat it, that I don't care how much executives get paid. I care about
keeping the best and brightest, particularly the people with the
technology and the skills, those needed skills, to work in the sector
that does work particularly for national security.
When we limit compensation--at least that is what is being
suggested--to those individuals who are out there on the leading edge
of technology and we drive them out of the Government procurement
area--particularly in the area of national security--we have hurt the
national security of this country. I know it wasn't deliberately
intended to do that, but that is exactly what this does. I would, in
fact, change the name. I think our underlying bill is an executive
compensation amendment or provision. The Boxer-Grassley amendment is a
scientist compensation limitation amendment. Let's call it what it is
because it doesn't just limit executives. In particular, it gets
scientists compensation who work for defense contractors or for
contractors in the national security area. That is a very serious
decision this Senate is going to make today as to whether we are going
to go out and drive the leading-edge technology people in this country
out of national security issues and put them--maybe there is a motive
here, to send them out to California to work for the movie industry.
Maybe that is what is involved. I say that tongue-in-cheek, but that is
exactly what will happen, and that is not right. That is not in the
best interest of this country.
As the Senator from Iowa points out so eloquently, these caps on
executives for the big companies don't work. Why? Well, quite aside
from any claim of fraud or not telling us the real numbers is that a
lot of the contracts that these corporations have are not cost-type
contracts. They are fixed-price contracts. So the executives can get
paid anything they want on fixed-price contracts, because as long as
they deliver the item being procured at a certain price, they can pay
anybody in the organization anything, and they do. That is OK as long
as they give it to us for what we agreed to pay them for it.
So to suggest that somehow this cap works on lowering the
compensation of high-priced executives in big corporations, it doesn't
work; it will never work. We will come back every year

[[Page S7177]]

with these charts because we don't do all cost-type contracts, nor
should we. In fact, it goes against one of the things we have been
pushing for in reform of our acquisition in defense. Instead of just
looking at low cost, we look at best value. We look at the best value
for the taxpayer--not just cost, but value. And so what I think we are
going to increasingly see is that this amendment is, in a sense,
irrelevant for the large companies, but incredibly relevant for the
small defense contractors who are leading-edge, doing leading-edge
technology, many of whom are in California, I might add, and some of
whom are in Pennsylvania, I am proud to say. But we are going to lose
those people--the best and the brightest in the science fields--to
industries other than national security, and that would be the crime if
this amendment would succeed.

I yield to the chairman for such time as he may consume.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
require.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my
good friends, Senator Boxer and Senator Grassley.
Mr. President, I acknowledge that some executive salaries are
exorbitant, but section 804 of our defense bill is a sound middle
ground on the very controversial issue of payment of executive
compensation under cost-type contracts with Federal agencies, including
the Department of Defense. The section in our bill recognizes that the
industries supplying goods and services to the Federal Government do
not do so in isolation from the rest of the economy. They must compete
with similar companies in the private sector for the limited pool of
the most qualified technical and management people. Salaries for such
people are not determined by a Government agency; they are set in the
marketplace. Section 804 would provide a framework for ensuring that we
can bring the best private sector talent to bear to support our
national defense.
At the same time, section 804 would not permit the Federal Government
to reimburse exorbitant salaries or other forms of compensation. The
maximum allowable limit for executive compensation covered under this
provision would not exceed $340,000, according to the Defense Contract
Audit Agency, based on surveys conducted in 1995. In fact, the
administration opposes section 804 because it provides too great a
limitation on compensation, in their view. The administration wants to
pay more, but we limit this to $340,000 in our defense bill.
Mr. President, section 804 is a sound means to settle executive
compensation issues once and for all. It protects the interests of the
taxpayer, both in the limits it places on reimbursement under cost-type
contracts and by recognizing the relationship between compensation
practices in the industries supporting defense and those in the
commercial sector. I urge the rejection of Boxer-Grassley amendment.
We feel that our defense provision here covers it adequately and is
in the best interest of the Government.
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the Senator from Virginia whatever time he
needs.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will take 3 or 4 minutes to pose
questions to the Senator. It seems like here in the legislative bodies,
whether it is tax, capital gains, or anything else, we are out to
penalize a certain class of individuals who, by and large, have worked
hard all their life, beginning in the educational system, to equip
themselves with the knowledge, through a series of degrees, to take on
the responsibilities of leading our corporate structure.
Whether they are scientists or financial managers, or whether they
are just entrepreneurs, they make sacrifices often to start these
businesses with their personal funds working long hours and giving up
vacations.
So here we go again. But I would like to just sort of sketch a
profile of a company that, say, is doing $100 million worth of
business, and, say, 80 percent of it is pure private sector--nothing to
do with Uncle Sam. But Uncle Sam would like to have a piece of the
brain trust in this company, and, therefore, it comes around and the
contract is theirs. In the first place, say that CEO is making $500,000
a year; well deserved. If he gets caught up in the indirect costs he is
banged into the Boxer-Grassley cap, is he not?
Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct. The amount of money that will be
allocated to defense contracts would limit his salary to a percentage
which would be probably below what he would be paid otherwise.
Mr. WARNER. Then he will sit down. And he has to decide. ``Do I apply
my brain power?'' Suppose he somehow is able to draw a firewall in the
company, and the CEO and a lot of the other top people stay out of the
contract. Does that not deprive the government of the benefit of the
experience and the brain trust at the top salaries?
Mr. SANTORUM. What would happen is a couple of things. According to
the Grassley amendment, it is my understanding they would be roped in
no matter whether they did any work or not. They would be covered under
this because their company is. It doesn't limit it just to people
involved in defense contracts. It is anybody in the country.
That is No. 1.
No. 2, it would shift the cost of paying those salaries away from the
defense contract to the private sector, which would make them less
competitive out there in the private commercial sector, which would
then probably say, Look, we can't be as competitive out there in the
private sector. We are just going to walk away from this defense
contract.
Mr. WARNER. One word: Disincentive.
Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Therefore, the board of directors and the CEO of this
company are going to say, We are doing fine with 80 percent private
sector. Too bad, national security. You are on your own. Of course, I
recognize in most instances for patriotic reasons they will step into
it. But nevertheless I think this is the wrong approach.
I say that with a great deal of empathy for my distinguished
colleague with whom I have worked these many years. He is sort of a
watchdog. I commend him for such innovation. But I suggest that our
committee has done its work, and I strongly urge the Senate to back the
solution to this problem as devised by our distinguished colleague from
Pennsylvania for the Armed Services Committee.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. SANTORUM. I would agree with the Senator from Virginia. The
Senator from Iowa has been a dogged--I don't mean to use metaphor--
dogged in his watchdog of the Federal Treasury. But he is chasing----
Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield, he is our inspector general.
Mr. SANTORUM. He is chasing the wrong--in this case, the dog is
chasing the wrong person. What you end up chasing is chasing very
skilled technical people and very highly competent managers of people
out of the business who want to be more and more competitive.
Again, I chair the subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology. My
real concern here in the committee is the technological advances. What
we are hearing in the testimony is more and more we will have to go out
into the commercial sector and get the technology that is being put
together in the commercial sector to bring that into the defense area
at a lower cost that is more efficient and more effective. If we limit
the compensation, we are just simply not going to get those commercial
entities involved in the defense industry. That is a real crime. We are
giving up resources and talent and capability by limiting it, as we are
here, to a salary of one-quarter of what a shortstop of the Pittsburgh
Pirates makes who bats--actually the shortstop is batting over .200,
but not much over .200 right now. That is not right. And I think it is
counterproductive for national security.

I reserve the remainder of my time.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. THURMOND. I yield such time as I may require.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Can I ask how much
time the Senator from Pennsylvania has remaining and the Senator from
California has remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 11 minutes
and 41 seconds. The Senator from California has 5 minutes and 25
seconds.

[[Page S7178]]

Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to withhold.
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina such time as
he may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Santorum, the
able chairman of the subcommittee that handled this matter, for all the
good work he did on that subcommittee.
I also wish to commend the able Senator from Virginia for his
explanatory remarks on this subject.
I think this matter is so clear that no other conclusion could be
reached than the position taken by the able chairman of the
subcommittee, Senator Santorum, and the able Senator from Virginia, and
others who have taken that position.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, sometimes I feel like Alice in Wonderland.
And this is one of those moments.
The Senator from Virginia says this is an innovative idea--the
amendment by myself and the Senator from Iowa. Mr. President, this is
the same idea that this body voted for unanimously 2 years ago except
we set a cap at $250,000. Now we set it at the level of the pay of the
President of the United States. So this isn't innovation. This is
tightening the loophole.
Every Member of this body went along with this notion of capping the
amount that taxpayers would pay in 1 fiscal year to a Federal
contractor from taxpayer funds. They want to get millions of dollars
from the private sector. God bless them. But we believe it is the
appropriate thing to do when you look after the taxpayers' purse to put
a reasonable limit.
I wish that I had heard the same passion that I heard today from the
Senator from Pennsylvania when we debated the minimum wage.
I will tell you. The Senator from Pennsylvania says, what about a new
firm starting out and they know they can only make $200,000 a year
rather than the Federal Government? Wouldn't that inhibit them? I think
for a new firm starting out that is not a bad salary. Maybe in
Pennsylvania $200,000 a year isn't a lot of money, but where I come
from it is a lot of money. And we don't limit what people can make
outside of the Federal Government.
Then the Senator from Pennsylvania says he doesn't care what
executives get. He doesn't care. Well, he should care, if five
executives in one company pull down $4 million, $3 million, $2 million,
$2 million, $2 million respectively in 1 year when we thought we had a
$250,000 cap in place.
So I would ask my friend from Iowa if he would like to sum up because
we are getting to the end of this debate. I don't quite understand why
our proposal is being looked at as something brand new when in fact we
thought the $250,000 cap was in place, and now what we are all trying
to do is tighten down the hatches and make sure people do not take
advantage of taxpayers, and we are treating this as if we have come up
with some new idea. If he would care to comment on that and perhaps
close the debate, I would be happy to yield him any remaining time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think that is what is at stake here
with the debate on our amendment as well as the debate on what has
actually been taking place when there has been a cap in the law for the
last year or so, and that is that the caps aren't working. But also the
principle of a cap has been the policy of this Congress for a long
period of time. We want to continue that policy. We want that to be an
effective policy. We want a committee that is charged with the
oversight responsibility for a law that this body passes to make sure
that that policy is followed to a ``t'' by the Defense Department. We
see all of that at issue here in our amendment. This isn't just an
issue of $200,000 versus $250,000 or a new suggested limit of $340,000.
It is the integrity of this body making public policy on defense, and
is the Congress of the United States going to be followed by the agency
executing our laws?
We are finding out that Congress wants a cap. We are finding out even
on a reconsideration of that law that the Armed Services Committee
argues for a cap. We want it to be an effective cap. There might be an
argument about $200,000 versus $340,000. I will buy either limit. But
what I want is a limit that is enforced. I want the committee to know
how much money we are paying out.
We are told that they don't even know. They ought to know where the
taxpayer dollars are going, the names of the people receiving them, and
how much is going out.
That is the issue with this amendment as much as whether it is
$200,000, $250,000, or $340,000. Let's get this principle established
firmly by voting for this amendment, and let's see that the cap is
enforced.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have sympathy for what the Senator
from Iowa is saying. The fact of the matter is the amendment doesn't
accomplish what he wants to accomplish. We will be back here next year,
if the Senator's amendment passes, with the same because all the
Senator's amendment does is limit cost-type contracts. It does not
limit those contracts in which we purchase things from contractors for
a fixed price. We tell them when we purchase it for a fixed price, You
can pay whoever you want. You can pay whatever you want for the
material. You can pay the executives anything as long as you deliver
the product at this price. So they allocate some substantial portion or
what looks like at least some portion of these contract dollars. That
is perfectly legal.
If the Senator wants to say that we should not do any fixed-price
contracts, come with an amendment that says that. If he comes with
amendment that says we don't limit fixed contracts --I don't think he
would support it, but the Senator from California supports it--then we
can deal with this issue. But if all you are going to deal with is one
type of contract which is cost, then go out and show compensation
levels that include moneys from fixed-pricing contracts. That is what
they have done.
So for all of the passion--and I believe in the passion of the
Senator from Iowa, and the Senator from California--it doesn't solve
the problem; at least what they perceive as the problem. What I
perceive as the problem with their amendment is it does hurt since
technology and the highly competent people we need to be in the
national security area. And, frankly, not just national security but in
all areas of Government, if we can get them.
As I mentioned before, wouldn't it be nice if we had a more modern
upgraded air traffic control system? And we have the ability to pay
scientists the amount of money in contracts to be able to design those.
Under this amendment we could not get the best and the brightest to do
that.
So what this executive compensation amendment really effectively does
is limit the amount of money that we can pay people in the high-
technology field, the scientists and the information specialists that
we need to move the national security front forward.
So for that reason alone it should be soundly defeated. We cannot
afford, as we draw down defense, as we reduce our troop levels, as we
continue to rely more and more not only on high-tech--which is
certainly something we rely more upon, high technology but on
commercial technology and commercial contracts--contracts with
commercial organizations who will steer clear of Government contracts,
if they are going to be limited in how much they can reimburse their
scientists and other personnel through their technology that they are
sharing, because if they limit it they have to pass that cost on to
their private sector clients which makes them uncompetitive. So they
will choose not to compete in the defense area. So we lose valuable
commercial technology.
So we are not only losing the scientists. We are losing the
opportunity in the commercial area. We are creating a disincentive for
people to be involved. And, even with all of that, if we adopt the
amendment, it wouldn't work. So it accomplishes all those negative
things, and the one positive thing they choose to accomplish it does
not accomplish because it does not limit anybody's salary except those
small

[[Page S7179]]

businesses that have primarily cost-type contracts. Those small
businesses, 80, 90 percent of the contractors that have principally
cost-type contracts, they get nailed by this amendment. All the big
guys it does not bother. It nails the small companies and their ability
to compete, to get compensated for the technology that they are
inventing in many cases and to get good people to work in those
businesses in towns all across America.

This is a dangerous amendment for national security. It is an
amendment that I hope is overwhelmingly rejected. It is an amendment
that I know the Senator from Connecticut, the ranking member, opposes
and I know the ranking member on the full committee, Senator Levin,
opposes. They support the underlying committee decision which, I would
add, is opposed by the White House because they believe our cap is too
low.
I know that this amendment has passed in the past, and the Senator
from California said it was passed overwhelmingly, but I would implore
that the Senate come to its senses in this case and realize its impact.
I now yield the remaining part of my time to the Senator, the ranking
member, from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman.
Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from
Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I was concerned that my friend and
colleague from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, thought
I was missing in action on a controversial matter. I apologize. I was
involved in a Government Affairs campaign finance investigation.
I stand solidly and strongly with the chairman of our subcommittee.
It is my privilege to be his ranking Democratic member in fashioning
the proposal on compensation of executive salary which is in the DOD
Authorization Act before us. We compromised and, as I believe I just
heard the Senator from Pennsylvania say, we specifically rejected a
proposal from the administration that would have permitted
reimbursement of salaries as high as $4 million a year for some senior
executives in the largest corporations.
To tell you the truth, they had a plausible argument in terms of
getting the best people to do the job for our defense needs, but it
was, we thought, an untenable argument so we came up with this modest
increase in the cap. The cap is rationally based. In fact, in some ways
it is tighter than any of the limitations in law today for the simple
reason that, unlike those limitations, our provision would apply to all
costs charged on all defense and nondefense contracts regardless of
when the contracts may have been entered.
The flexibility provided by our approach, which is to say to base the
limitation on a median private sector salary, is likely to be
particularly important to small companies that rely on Department of
Defense business. Unlike the larger and diversified companies that can
eat the larger executive salaries, many smaller businesses,
particularly the high-technology businesses that are the source of so
much growth around our country, are not in a position to pay their
executives what the market requires and absorb or, to use the phrase I
used before, ``eat'' any unreimbursed amounts. If the cap that we set
is too low, some of these businesses are going to have difficulty
attracting and retaining qualified personnel.
Mr. President, the proposed amendment, which would lower the cap to
$200,000, is, in my opinion, not necessary to protect the taxpayers
from excessive executive salaries. If a contractor pays an executive,
for instance, the $4 million a year that might have been allowed under
the Pentagon proposal, the provision in the underlying bill would
disallow $3,660,000 of that salary. The proposed amendment would save
an additional $140,000. That is a difference of less than 4 percent,
and the cost of it in terms of lost opportunity is much larger.
What we will lose by going after that additional amount is far more
significant than the amount of money that will be gained. We are going
to lose the flexibility for small businesses that are dependent on
Government contracts to pay what the market requires to attract the
skilled professionals that they need to provide the quality products
and services that we need to maintain our national security. We risk
driving such experts out of companies that work for the Government and
reducing the expertise available to our Government, the Pentagon and
other Federal agencies, and, most important I believe, we risk driving
some small businesses that are highly reliant on such experts out of
doing business with the Government at all.
Mr. President, the amendment before us, of course, is an easy
amendment to vote for. We can say we took a whack at high salaries of
executives of companies. What I am suggesting is the difference between
the amendment and the underlying bill is minimal and the consequences
for a lot of people, for a lot of companies, for a lot of areas of our
country where those companies exist, for our Government itself in
obtaining the highest quality, most cost-efficient products is much,
much greater.

So it is not an easy vote. But, of course, that is not why the Senate
is here. This is the right vote. I urge my colleagues to reject this
amendment and stand by the very reasonable proposal in the underlying
bill.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have 12 seconds; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. OK.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the cap in the committee bill is so full
of loopholes, it is not going to work, just like the last one did not.
People brought down $4 million from Federal taxpayers in 1 year.
Support the Boxer-Grassley amendment. Let us do what we said we would
do 2 years ago.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 1 minute 13
seconds.
Mr. SANTORUM. How much time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A minute and 12 seconds.
Mr. SANTORUM. I cannot be any more eloquent than the Senator from
Connecticut in defending this position. I urge the Members to look at
this issue and to stay away from this populist appeal and look at the
impact, as the Senator from Connecticut said, on small business and on
high-technology firms that desperately need to get out there and
compete in the marketplace.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New
Mexico is recognized to offer an amendment.

Amendment No. 799

(Purpose: To increase the funding for Navy and Air Force flying hours,
and to offset the increase by reducing the amount authorized to be
appropriated for the Space-Based Laser program in excess of the amount
requested by the President)

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I understand we are
going to have some votes at 6 o'clock. So I will take a few minutes
here to explain the amendment that I am offering. Senator Dorgan also
wishes to speak in favor of the amendment. I believe the Senator from
New Hampshire, Senator Smith, wishes to speak in opposition to it and
maybe some others on both sides.
Let me start by describing what the issue is. The administration has
requested $29 million in this next fiscal year for the space-based
laser program which is operated under the Ballistic Missile Defense
Office. This is the same funding request level as we have had for the
past 2 years. It is the same level that is planned for each of the next
several years. This essentially is money to continue the research and
development part of this program, which the administration supports,
which I support. But the bill which has come to the Senate floor, which
the committee has passed out, adds an additional $118 million in this
next fiscal year for a total of about $148 million. The amendment that
we are offering here will bring the funding level back to what the
administration requested. That is $29 million. It shifts the $118
million that the committee added to this space-based laser program to
increase the flying hours for the Air Force and

[[Page S7180]]

the Navy both, $59 million for the Air Force and $59 million for the
Navy.
Mr. President, with that short description, let me send this
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an
amendment numbered 799.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle A of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1009. INCREASED AMOUNTS FOR AIR FORCE AND NAVY FLYING
HOURS.

(A) Increase.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, the amount authorized to be appropriated under section
301(2) is hereby increased by $59,000,000, and the amount
authorized under section 301(4) is hereby increased by
$59,000,000.
(b) Decrease.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, the total amount authorized to be appropriated to be
appropriated under section 201(4) is hereby decreased by
$118,000,000.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as I indicated, the bill that we have
before us adds $118 million to what is called the space-based laser
readiness demonstrator program. That funding level represents 5 years'
worth of the planned space-based laser funding--planned by the
Pentagon. In order to sustain the program at this increased level,
which the committee has reported here, would require an additional
expenditure of somewhere between $200 million and $300 million a year,
which is more than 10 times what is planned for future budgets.
Mr. President, let me try to demonstrate the difference that I am
talking about with this chart.
This chart tries to lay out between now and the year 2005 the current
rate--which is in green here on this chart--the current rate of
funding, cumulative funding, that is requested for this space-based
laser activity by the Pentagon, and the yellow in this chart is what
the committee would propose to begin adding.
Now, we do not do all of that. This is a 1-year defense authorization
bill. We just add $118 million to the $29 million that the Pentagon
requested the first year. But if you take the best figures that have
been given us and say we are going to have an additional $200 million a
year added, so you put the cumulative amount there, you can see that
the total amount by the year 2005 is a very substantial figure.
The larger context for considering this space-based laser program
involves four basic questions. Let me briefly go through each of those.
First of all, what is a space-based laser? People need to understand
something about that, and I will try to explain it. Second, how would a
space-based laser fit into the U.S. plan for a national missile
defense? Third, is there a threat that warrants or justifies developing
and deploying a space-based laser? And finally, No. 4, would it be
affordable for us to do so? Would it be cost effective for us to do so?
Let me try to explain first what a space-based laser is and then
answer each of these other questions.
Mr. President, the space-based laser, which is the subject of this
amendment, is technology that was born in the early days of the
Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI. For those who have followed this set
of issues over the last decade or so, they will remember the star wars
proposals that we debated on the floor. The crown jewel of that star
wars program was the space-based laser. It held out the promise of tens
of satellites constantly orbiting the Earth ready to zap the hundreds
upon hundreds of Soviet nuclear ballistic missiles that were launched
from land and sea both.
The idea behind the space-based laser is that we would orbit a group
of perhaps 20 or perhaps more very large satellites. Each satellite
would be in the range of 80,000 pounds and each of them would be
equipped with a chemical laser on the satellite. The chemical laser
would produce a beam of very high-energy laser light that would then be
focused very carefully with a very huge mirror so that the laser beam
could be focused on missiles when they were first launched. That was
the idea of getting up in space, so that you could zap a missile when
they first launched it. You didn't have to wait until the missile
actually came near your territory.
This would require having equipment on the satellite capable of
detecting and tracking and pointing the laser at a relatively small
object some 1,300 kilometers away over a long enough period of time to
permit the laser energy to destroy the missile.
The satellites are so large, the satellites contemplated in this
program of space-based lasers are so large and so heavy, we would have
to design and build an entire new series of heavy space-launch vehicles
with enough lifting power to get one of these huge payloads, 40 tons,
into space--80,000 pounds, 40 tons. There is today no rocket, there is
no space-launch vehicle currently in our inventory that can boost such
a large payload into space. The cost of building such a booster would
represent a significant part of the cost of any space-based laser
system. The space-based laser readiness demonstrator which we would
fund or begin to fund with the $118 million provided in the bill is
meant to demonstrate that the many technologies that are required in
order to accomplish what I have just described can be met and overcome.
The demonstrator would be a reduced size system with all the necessary
technology and parts to make all the components work together at the
same time.

This would presumably cost several billion dollars to find out the
answers to these questions. The money does not exist anywhere in the
Pentagon's budget plan for this coming year or the next 5 years, or the
out years even after that. So, clearly that money would have to come
from other defense programs.
I should point out that this chart, which takes us through the year
2005, does not get us to actual deployment, or development even of a
space-based laser. This only gets us to the development of this
demonstrator, which I think, as I indicated, is a half-size replica of
what we would actually be talking about developing at some future date.
The second question I mentioned, which needs to be dealt with, is,
how does this space-based laser fit into our National Missile Defense
Program? The United States is developing a National Missile Defense
System to defend against a small Third World nation ICBM program, an
intercontinental ballistic missile program that has not emerged yet and
is not, in fact, expected to emerge for another 15 years. But we are
developing that program. The National Missile Defense Program is
designed to be compliant with the ABM Treaty, although it remains to be
seen whether we might need to change or propose changes or withdraw
from that treaty at some time in the future.
There is no U.S. plan to deploy a space-based laser system, and we
know of no justification today for doing so. That is why the Pentagon
has asked merely to continue with research and development funding in
this area.
Furthermore, the cost of deploying such a system would be enormous.
The existing National Missile Defense System Program involves
developing a ground-based missile interceptor capability which is very
different from a space-based laser. The ground-based defense system
just had its development cost increased from $2.3 to $4.6 billion. The
administration requested that increase.
Our committee is proposing that the Senate go along with that
increase. We are adding $474 million to this year's defense bill in
order to do that, and nothing in our amendment that I am talking about
here would affect that at all. But the cost to deploy the National
Missile Defense System last year was pegged at about $10 billion. When
you add to that the space and missile tracking system, you get another
$5-or-so billion. So we are already planning on paying something in the
order of $17 billion for the limited National Missile Defense System
that is designed to stop a handful of rogue missiles coming into this
country. As I said before, we have no plan, however, to pay the
additional tens of billions of dollars to actually develop and deploy a
space-based laser.
The third question that I cited when I began my comments is, is there
a threat that this country faces to our

[[Page S7181]]

national security, a threat that would justify developing and deploying
the space-based laser? The National Missile Defense System that we are
developing today that I just described is meant to defend against a
handful of these ICBM's that might be launched at some future date by
some rogue nation, if they develop the capability to do that. According
to the administration, there is no significant ballistic missile threat
being faced by the United States today.
North Korea is the only nation considered to be actively trying to
develop such a missile. But the North Korean economy is in terrible
shape. Their own military, according to the best information we have,
is going hungry in some cases. The Defense Intelligence Agency publicly
stated that their country is--I believe they used the phrase ``probably
terminal.'' Neither Russian nor Chinese strategic missiles are
considered a threat today because neither nation has a plausible reason
to attack the United States. And, of course, we maintain an
overwhelming nuclear deterrent capability, which we should maintain.
The United States and Russia have detargeted their ICBM's and their
SLBM's, which means that no accidental launch could be expected from
either territory toward the other country. So this is not a threat
situation that requires a space-based laser. This is not a threat
situation that requires rapid and expensive development of this so-
called readiness demonstrator, as this accelerated program is referred
to.
The final issue I wanted to mention is the issue of cost. Is the
space-based laser either affordable or cost effective? Last year's
Defend America Act, as proposed but not as enacted, included a
requirement for space-based lasers. That was a primary factor that led
the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the cost of the system at
up to $60 billion to procure and up to an additional $120 billion to
operate it over the next 30 years.
The Department of Defense stated recently that CBO's cost estimates
may have been too low and that the cost of building and launching a
space-based laser system is almost certainly higher than those figures.
One reason for the high cost, as I mentioned in describing a space-
based laser, is the cost of launching the heavy laser systems into
space. We need a heavy-lift booster that does not exist today. It would
be very expensive to develop. The cost of such a system is totally
outside the realm of the current budget or the planned defense budgets.
This would not be affordable, and it is not likely that it is cost
effective against the limited emerging ballistic missile threat. The
current program is designed to handle any foreseeable limited ballistic
missile attack from a rogue nation.
The Department of Defense has recently doubled the cost estimate for
the development program, as I mentioned, and there is no plan to deploy
even that ground-based missile interceptor system today unless and
until a real threat emerges. If such a deployment is warranted,
obviously we will have to spend substantially more. But none of the
deployment funds are planned in any future defense budget even for the
ground-based missile defense system, the missile interceptor system
that I described.
DOD has no plans to fund the space-based laser program at the much
higher levels that are proposed in this defense bill. DOD clearly has
higher priorities. We need to protect those higher priorities and not
pass a bill here which commits us or which starts us down the road
toward spending money on programs that the Department of Defense has
not requested.
The bottom line is that we are nowhere near deploying a space-based
laser. There is no need for us to do so. The administration already has
a very expensive National Missile Defense Development Program underway.
And unless this amendment that we are offering here this evening is
adopted, the Senate will be putting five times as much money into the
space-based laser program as the administration has requested in 1998,
and we will be starting down the road to developing a demonstrator and
eventually a space-based laser program that will be hugely expensive
and of very marginal value to our national security.
So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. At this point, I
yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, if there is nobody
else wishing to speak at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just add a couple of items that I
overlooked, since we have just another couple of minutes here before
the vote occurs.
As I indicated in describing the amendment, we are suggesting that
the $118 million which we are trying to delete from the bill for the
space-based laser program be, instead, transferred over for Air Force
and Navy flying hours. The reason I have offered that suggestion is a
letter from the Secretary of Defense to Senator Levin, and I am sure
Senator Thurmond also received a copy of it. The letter is dated the
23d of May. Former Senator Cohen, now Secretary Cohen, stated in this
letter:

In addition to adjustments reflective of the Quadrennial
Defense Review, I recommend a fact-of-life adjustment
concerning flying hour costs. The Navy and the Air Force are
both experiencing greater costs per flying hour than
anticipated in their budgets. We are currently analyzing the
causes of this increase, but the preliminary indications are
that the increase is caused by greater spare parts
requirements per flying hour than were experienced in the
past. We estimate the impact of these increases to be $350
million for the Navy and $200 million for the Air Force.

So he has requested that we add the total of $550 million to the
combined flying hours for the Air Force and the Navy. This amendment
adds $59 million to the Air Force and $59 million to the Navy.
Obviously, it does not meet the entire requirement as stated by the
Secretary of Defense, but it moves us in the right direction.
So I do think this is a better use of the funds. It is a use that the
Pentagon itself and the Secretary of Defense have indicated they
support. For that reason, that is what we are suggesting be done with
the funds.
Mr. President, let me also, before I yield the floor again, ask
unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan be added as a cosponsor of this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my friend from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, which would cut the
$118 million added to the bill for the space-based laser [SBL] program.
As my colleagues are aware, I have long supported development of a
national missile defense system to protect our Nation from the threat
of a limited accidental or unauthorized ICBM launch from an established
nuclear power, and from the threat of attack from a rogue state, such
as North Korea, Libya, and Iraq. To ensure that our NMD program makes
good fiscal and national security sense, I believe that the system we
develop must meet the common sense criteria of affordability,
compatibility with our arms control treaties, and utilization of
existing technology. These key tests provide a reliable guide for
developing an affordable, responsible, and reliable means of countering
the limited threat we will face early in the next century.
Although sometime in the next century we may do the NMD and theater
missile defense missions from space, I do not believe that this is the
time to invest $118 million in the SBL. This money would be much better
spent if invested in promising missile defense systems we are very
close to having today, such as the Minuteman-based NMD option, and the
Airborne Laser TMD program of the U.S. Air Force.
I also do not believe we need to start a funding stream that would
obligate us to spend more than $1 billion over the next 7 years to
field only a single SBL demonstrator satellite. With the Minuteman and
ABL systems becoming available, there is simply no reason to put us on
a slippery slope toward an unnecessary operational SBL deployment that
will surely cost tens of billions of dollars.
In addition to failing the affordability test, pressing forward with
the

[[Page S7182]]

SBL today represents a clear threat to arms control. As my colleagues
may be aware, the ABM Treaty explicitly prohibits space-based missile
defense systems, and the Russians have stated clearly their belief that
development of such a capability by the United States would lead to a
renewed arms race.
It is true that the $118 million in question would go toward
development of a demonstrator SBL satellite, and that the ABM Treaty
permits development of missile defense systems that would not be treaty
compliant if operationally deployed. Nevertheless, development of such
a capability would logically increase the likelihood of deployment of
space weapons before they are necessary or wise. In light of the near-
term, treaty-friendly NMD and TMD capability offered by the Minuteman
and ABL systems, we would needlessly be putting our Nation on course to
violate the ABM Treaty and re-ignite the arms race.
Finally, Mr. President, aggressive SBL development today fails the
third key test I outlined earlier--utilization of existing technology.
Although the SBL would leverage research done on the ABL, the SBL is
still new, untested technology. We know much more about how lasers
perform in our atmosphere than in space. We have also never deployed
weapons in space.
Because of these considerations, we could expect costs to grow,
testing and deployment schedules to slip, and reliability to be highly
questionable. I hope my colleagues would agree that the ABL is a much
better investment in laser-based missile defense systems. It will
provide the same boost-phase intercept capability as the SBL nearer-
term, at a lower cost, and without endangering our arms control
agreements.
Before closing, Mr. President, I would also note on the subject of
technology that even if we were to construct an SBL capability, its
satellites would be too massive for any existing U.S. booster rocket to
loft into orbit. The one American rocket that could have gotten the job
done--the Saturn V that sent the Apollo astronauts to the Moon--was
retired over two decades ago. As it stands, the only alternative to
investing millions or billions more in a new heavy booster would be
using Russian's Proton rocket. The fact that the SBL represents a clear
threat to the ABM Treaty leads me to believe that our Russian friends
would be far from eager to help us in this regard.
Mr. President, the SBL is a fascinating technology, and I commend the
committee for their interest in what could several decades from now be
the right answer to our missile defense needs. However, this is not the
time for the SBL. The Minuteman and ABL systems are not only near-term,
but meet the commonsense criteria of affordability, compatibility with
our arms control agreements, and utilization of existing technology to
an extent the SBL simply cannot. For this reason, I support the
Bingaman amendment striking funding for the SBL, and urge my colleagues
to support its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 668, As Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes
equally divided on debate preceding the motion to table the Senator's
amendment. Does the Senator wish to proceed under that order?
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Inquiry, Mr. President. Is it 2 minutes time equally
divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Chair is
corrected. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment, which I offered on
behalf of myself, Senator Harkin, Senator Daschle, and Senator Kerry of
Massachusetts, is very simple and straightforward. It simply would
authorize the Secretary of Defense to be able to transfer $400 million
to veterans health care.
In the budget resolution, we cut $400 million out of the health care
budget of veterans. We have more Persian Gulf veterans who are seeking
care. We have more and more veterans who are living to be 65 and living
to be 85. We have veterans who are struggling with PTSD. This is a huge
mistake. We should not be doing this. This gives us an opportunity to
really be there for veterans.
There are three wonderful letters from Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Vietnam Veterans of America, and Disabled Veterans of America, all of
which strongly support this amendment. I hope we will have a good,
strong vote. I hope we will win on this. I say to colleagues, one way
or the other, we have to restore these cuts in veterans health care.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, if this body allows these amendments, or
other amendments, to lower defense spending below what was agreed to in
the budget agreement, we will be responsible for the impact on the
readiness of our forces. We will increase the tempo of our operating
forces and will not be able to provide the quality-of-life programs our
service members deserve.
Mr. President, there are all kinds of amendments here that take money
away from defense and give it to other things. Why don't they find some
other way to do it and not take it away from defense. Defense needs
every dollar that we have here, and I oppose the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 seconds.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on
agreeing to the motion to lay on the table amendment No. 668, as
modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 168 Leg.]

YEAS--58

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--41

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Grassley
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Sarbanes
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Mikulski

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 668) was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
sequenced votes be limited to 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.

[[Page S7183]]

Amendment No. 794, As Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes equally divided on Gramm amendment No. 794. The yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the vote will follow.
Who yields time?
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Chair was in error. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes of debate will be equally divided.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have 1,100,000 people in prison. We have
passed laws in Congress banning them from working to sell anything in
the private sector. The last place we can force them to work in is to
produce goods to be sold to the Government.
The Levin amendment will end prison labor in America. It is violently
opposed by the National Victims Center because the money we get from
working prisoners goes to compensate victims.
I yield the remainder of my time to the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. This is a very serious amendment. What the Gramm amendment
does is it provides for a study in the procurement program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
The Senate is not in order. The Chair cannot hear the Senator from
Utah.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. The only hope we have to rehabilitate these prisoners is
to get them to work. The only work they do is Federal Prison Industries
work. Basically, they can only sell their products to a Federal
procurement program, and they have to be products of quality and
products of price and products of distribution that work. So if we take
this away from them, we take away one of the most important aspects of
rehabilitation of criminals. So I hope people will vote for the Gramm
amendment and vote down the Levin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired for the proponents. The
Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we obviously want people in prison to work,
but we also want people who are out of prison to have an opportunity to
compete. The current Federal Prison Industries approach will not permit
people to compete even when their prices are lower than the Federal
Prison Industries price. That is not fair to all the small businesses
in this country. Hundreds of them have banded together in a Competition
in Contracting Act Coalition. Small businesses in all of our States
just want the right to compete when their prices are lower.
I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Abraham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
This amendment that Senator Levin and myself, Senator Kempthorne and
others offered will not end work in prisons. It will not prevent
prisoners from, through rehabilitation, learning skills. It just levels
the playing field to allow private companies to compete with prison
labor for these contracts that are now exclusively given to Federal
Prison Industries offered at a significant cost to the taxpayers from
what would exist if we had a level playing field in competition. The
taxpayers should not have to pay extra for these materials and products
supplied through Federal Prison Industries.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question now is
on agreeing to the Gramm amendment. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 169 Leg.]

YEAS--62

Akaka
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Wyden

NAYS--37

Abraham
Allard
Baucus
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Enzi
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Grassley
Helms
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kerry
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Reed
Reid
Robb
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Thomas
Warner
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--1

Mikulski

The amendment (No. 794), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 778, As Amended

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is now
on agreeing to the Levin amendment, as amended.
The amendment (No. 778), as amended, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on the Boxer amendment No.
636. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes equally divided.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to table the Boxer amendment.

Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before we begin the last vote, after
consultation with the Democratic leader, I have a unanimous-consent
request I would like to make. If we can get this agreed to, we would
have this remaining 10-minute vote and then we would go on to debate on
the amendments we have identified, with the votes to occur in the
morning on these issues at 9:45.
So I ask unanimous consent that, following the stacked votes, Senator
Bingaman be recognized to modify his amendment No. 799, and that there
be 30 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, and that no
second-degree amendments be in order and, following the expiration or
yielding back of time, a vote occur on or in relation to the Bingaman
amendment at 9:45 on Friday.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, can I
just clarify something? If we can have that half hour of debate
beginning at 9:15 tomorrow right before the vote, that would be ideal.
Mr. LOTT. Part of what we are trying to do is to get an agreement to
have debates tonight so we can have votes in the morning at 9:30 or
9:45. I thought there was a need just to have a vote at 9:45. Our
intent is to finish the defense authorization bill tomorrow. In order
to do that--we understand that, other than the three amendments we may
get agreement on tonight, there may be three amendments or so tomorrow.
We are going to try to identify those and get time agreements and have
the votes so that we can, hopefully, get out of here by 12:30 tomorrow.
So if the Senator would be willing, we could have the debate tonight
and then if you want to, in the morning, come in at 9:30 and have 15
minutes more of the time equally divided, in addition to the 30 minutes
tonight, and have the vote at 9:45 because of other considerations, I
think that would be a good arrangement.
Mr. BINGAMAN. That would be fine if we could have 15 minutes tomorrow
morning before the vote, equally divided.
Mr. LOTT. I understand.
Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object. The distinguished Senator
from Texas and the Senator from Virginia have an amendment relating to
our policy in Bosnia--the United States policy in Bosnia--particularly
with respect to the mission of capturing alleged war criminals. I would
like to

[[Page S7184]]

have the opportunity to have that debated at whatever time is
convenient for the managers of the bill.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I was going to get the agreement on the
Bingaman amendment and then we would go on through some other
information here.
Mr. WARNER. I withdraw that.
Mr. LOTT. We would like to have debate on three identifiable
amendments tonight, with three votes occurring in the morning, stacked,
at 9:45. This can be one of those three that we would like to have
debated tonight and voted on first thing in the morning.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, may I ask the majority leader this question?
I simply want to withdraw two amendments and substitute versions that
have been cleared on both sides. I wonder if I might do that before the
Bingaman amendment is discussed this evening.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let's get the unanimous-consent request, and
I believe the Senator could do it right at that point before we go to
the vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LOTT. Let me clarify what it is, since it has been changed.
The request is that we have 30 minutes of debate tonight after the
stacked votes on the Bingaman amendment, that there be no second-degree
amendments in order, that when we come in at 9:30, we will have 15
minutes, equally divided, on the Bingaman amendment, with the vote
beginning at or about 9:45. So that is the first part of the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I further ask unanimous consent that the amendment by
Senator Warner and Senator Hutchison be next in order tonight. How much
time will be needed?
Mr. WARNER. Thirty minutes a side.
Mr. LOTT. With 30 minutes, equally divided, on that----
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have not
seen that amendment yet, as far as I can tell from staff. Before we can
agree to that time limit, we would like to see the amendment. We
thought you were referring to a different amendment relative to Bosnia
that we think may be able to be worked out without a rollcall; we are
not sure. If this is a different amendment, we would like to see it.
Mr. LOTT. I will revise it to this extent. Next would be the Warner-
Hutchison amendment. We won't lock in a time agreement now, but it
would be the second vote in order stacked in the morning at 9:45.
Mr. LEVIN. Well, that amounts to a time limit. May we see that
amendment before the UC is propounded?
Mr. WARNER. Of course, it can be examined. I suggest that the Senator
from Michigan might agree to the UC, with the understanding that it
would be reopened if you took the initiative.
Mr. LEVIN. We would like to see the amendment.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Wisconsin in the
Chamber. I understood he had an amendment he might like to offer. We
don't know what the disposition would be, but I ask unanimous consent
that the third amendment to come up be the Feingold amendment on or in
relation to Bosnia, and any vote thereon, if needed, would be at 9:45
in the stacked sequence, also.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I understand that there may be as many as four or five
additional issues to be resolved on this bill. I encourage all Members
who have amendments that they really are serious about identify those
to the managers of the legislation tonight, and any votes ordered on
those will be stacked. We will try to get a unanimous-consent agreement
on the time on those remaining amendments when we come in, in the
morning.
So there will be no further votes this evening, with the first votes
to begin tomorrow morning at 9:45. We really need the Senators'
cooperation so we can complete this legislation. I thank the Senator
from South Dakota for his assistance in this effort.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could just encourage our colleagues
on this side of the aisle. We have a number of amendments that may not
require rollcalls, but there are two or three that will. I would like
very much to be able to work out time agreements tonight on those, so
we can announce them tomorrow.
There is a desire on the part of both sides, I think, to try to
finish at the target time of about noon tomorrow. So we have to work
very carefully on these remaining amendments and get time agreements
that will accommodate that schedule. So if you have a rollcall, let's
try to work out the time agreement tonight before we leave.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object----
Mr. LOTT. I don't think the request was made. I yield to the Senator
from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I ask the leadership to address the following. On the
amendment relating to Bosnia by the distinguished Senator from
Wisconsin, I would like to reserve the right to have the second-degree
amendment.
Mr. LOTT. Certainly; we did not prohibit that. You would have that
right. I would like to ask our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
be very cautious about amendments we do at this time with regard to
Bosnia. Our troops are there on the ground. I had the occasion, with a
bipartisan delegation, to be there last week. We have some very
sensitive circumstances that have evolved there just in the last 24
hours. I don't even know what the amendments are, but I hope we will
use the maximum amount of discretion in what we do in this area right
now. Please be very careful what you do on Bosnia on this bill. I
realize there may be some merits to them. I know the Senators will be
very careful, and I urge them to do so.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the majority leader yield on that point?
Mr. LOTT. Yes, I would be happy to.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to support the statement of the
majority leader. I don't know what is in these Bosnia amendments, but
this is obviously always a difficult and sensitive issue. You know, we
are locking in now procedure to try to produce this bill, which I am
supportive of. I don't think we ought to put into that mix perhaps
acting precipitously on a very complicated issue. I think the majority
leader has made a very strong point.
Mr. LOTT. We are going to get a chance to look at the amendments. The
Senator from Wisconsin, I believe, is going to talk to the managers of
the bill. But without prejudicing anybody's position, I just wanted to
add an admonition.
Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield, did the leader say we must
bring forth the amendment tonight and file it or something? Did I
misunderstand?
Mr. LOTT. If you have an amendment you really would like to have
considered, particularly if it may require a vote, we would really like
to know about that amendment and then get an agreement on some time
limit in the morning if at all possible.
Mr. STEVENS. We don't have to file them tonight?
Mr. LOTT. I assume you would have already filed it probably, but you
don't have to. We are not looking for amendments, by the way. We are
discouraging them, I might say to the Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. Well, I might have a few.
Mr. LOTT. I see that you have your bright tie on tonight. Maybe
tomorrow you will feel differently.
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if it would be wise to attempt to get an
agreement that amendments that will be offered will be filed tonight.
Mr. LOTT. The Senator from South Dakota and I have found that when we
do that, it tends to invite amendments. We are not urging or inviting
amendments.
Mr. LEVIN. For the reason stated, I withdraw my suggestion.
Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor so we can begin the vote.

Amendment No. 636

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2
minutes equally divided on the Boxer amendment.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to divide my time with the
Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley.
My colleagues, last year corporate executives got paid millions of
dollars each from taxpayers. One got $4 million, according to a
scandalous GAO report--all this, while we thought we had a cap in
place. It didn't work, and the

[[Page S7185]]

Boxer-Grassley bill fixes it. That is why we have strong support from
people who want to see reform. I yield to my colleague and hope he will
support us.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the issue here is whether or not we are
going to stand by and let the Pentagon thumb its nose at the U.S.
Senate. We have had salary caps for the last 3 years. The Defense
Department has found a way, by $33 million, just with McDonnell Douglas
getting over that salary cap. We need an effective salary cap. We
haven't had one. This will guarantee an effective salary cap so that
the Pentagon will have to execute the laws the way Congress intended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the proponents of the amendment
has expired.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Senator Lieberman, who is on the
subcommittee, looked at this issue and asked the administration last
year to come up with a proposal. They came up with a cap of $4 million.
We didn't think that was particularly salable on the floor of the U.S.
Senate. So we came up with a different calculation that put the cap at
$340,000. That is the median salary of the executives of companies that
have sales of over $50 million.

What this amendment does is lower that cap to $200,000, and in so
doing it applies to not just executives but scientists--people who are
in demand, who are going to be taken away from high-technology firms
and national defense and are going to other places where they can make
a lot more money because they are going to be capped under this
amendment.
This is a bad amendment. It is going to hurt national security. It
also hurts small businesses, because those are the businesses that are
primarily defense businesses that are not going to have the opportunity
to compensate their employees from other sources like commercial
entities.
I encourage a strong no vote on this.
I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I agree with the Senator.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to table the Boxer amendment, and
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from South Carolina to lay on the table the amendment of
the Senator from California. On this question, the yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 16, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 170 Leg.]

YEAS--83

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner

NAYS--16

Akaka
Biden
Boxer
Durbin
Feingold
Grassley
Harkin
Hutchison
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Leahy
Moseley-Braun
Reed
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Mikulski

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 636) was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

CHANGE OF VOTE

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, on the last vote, rollcall vote No.
170, I ask unanimous consent to change my vote. I voted ``no'' and
meant to vote ``aye.'' This will in no way change the outcome of the
vote. I mistakenly thought it was an up or down instead of tabling.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, what is the pending business now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Bingaman amendment numbered 799.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to speak on that amendment, but I
will withhold while Senator Kyl asks for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. KYL. I appreciate that.

Amendment No. 605, As Modified and Amendment No. 607, As Modified
Further

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
amendments numbered 605 and 607 and substitute for them versions of
amendments 605 and 607 which have been cleared by both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Without objection, the amendments are so modified.
The amendment (No. 605), as modified, is as follows:

On page 347, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

SEC. 1075. ADVICE TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS REGARDING THE
SAFETY, SECURITY, AND RELIABILITY OF UNITED
STATES NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons on
earth. The United States and its allies continue to rely on
nuclear weapons to deter potential adversaries from using
weapons of mass destruction. The safety and reliability of
the nuclear stockpile are essential to ensure its credibility
as a deterrent.
(2) On September 24, 1996, President Clinton signed the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
(3) Effective as of September 30, 1996, the United States
is prohibited by section 507 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-377; 42
U.S.C. 2121 note) from conducting underground nuclear tests
``unless a foreign state conducts a nuclear test after this
date, at which time the prohibition on United States nuclear
testing is lifted''.
(4) Section 1436(b) of the National Defense Authorization
Act, Fiscal Year 1989 (Public Law 100-456; 42 U.S.C. 2121
note) requires the Secretary of Energy to ``establish and
support a program to assure that the United States is in a
position to maintain the reliability, safety, and continued
deterrent effect of its stockpile of existing nuclear weapons
designs in the event that a low-threshold or comprehensive
test ban on nuclear explosive testing is negotiated and
ratified.''.
(5) Section 3138(d) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 42 U.S.C. 2121
note) requires the President to submit an annual report to
Congress which sets forth ``any concerns with respect to the
safety, security, effectiveness, or reliability of existing
United States nuclear weapons raised by the Stockpile
Stewardship Program of the Department of Energy''.
(6) President Clinton declared in July 1993 that ``to
assure that our nuclear deterrent remains unquestioned under
a test ban, we will explore other means of maintaining our
confidence in the safety, reliability, and the performance of
our weapons''. This decision was codified in a Presidential
Directive.
(7) Section 3138 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1994 also requires that the Secretary of
Energy establish a ``stewardship program to ensure the
preservation of the core intellectual and technical
competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons''.
(8) The plan of the Department of Energy to maintain the
safety and reliability of the United States nuclear stockpile
is known as the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program.
The ability of the United States to maintain warheads without
testing will require development of new and sophisticated
diagnostic technologies, methods, and procedures. Current
diagnostic technologies and laboratory testing techniques are
insufficient to certify the future safety and reliability of
the United States nuclear stockpile. In the past these
laboratory and diagnostic tools were used in conjunction with
nuclear testing.
(9) On August 11, 1995, President Clinton directed ``the
establishment of a new annual reporting and certification
requirement [to] ensure that our nuclear weapons remain safe
and reliable under a comprehensive test ban''.

[[Page S7186]]

(10) On the same day, the President noted that the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy have the
responsibility, after being ``advised by the Nuclear Weapons
Council, the Directors of DOE's nuclear weapons laboratories,
and the Commander of United States Strategic Command'', to
provide the President with the information to make the
certification referred to in paragraph (9).
(11) The Joint Nuclear Weapons Council established by
section 179 of title 10, United States Code, is responsible
for providing advice to the Secretary of Energy and Secretary
of Defense regarding nuclear weapons issues, including
``considering safety, security, and control issues for
existing weapons''. The Council plays a critical role in
advising Congress in matters relating to nuclear weapons.
(12) It is essential that the President receive well-
informed, objective, and honest opinions from his advisors
and technical experts regarding the safety, security, and
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.
(b) Policy.--
(1) In general.--It is the policy of the United States--
(A) to maintain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear
weapons stockpile; and
(B) as long as other nations covet or control nuclear
weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, to retain a
credible nuclear deterrent.
(2) Nuclear weapons stockpile.--It is in the security
interest of the United States to sustain the United States
nuclear weapons stockpile through programs relating to
stockpile stewardship, subcritical experiments, maintenance
of the weapons laboratories, and protection of the
infrastructure of the weapons complex.
(3) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(A) the United States should retain a triad of strategic
nuclear forces sufficient to deter any future hostile foreign
leadership with access to strategic nuclear forces from
acting against our vital interests;
(B) the United States should continue to maintain nuclear
forces of sufficient size and capability to hold at risk a
broad range of assets valued by such political and military
leaders; and
(C) the advice of the persons required to provide the
President and Congress with assurances of the safety,
security and reliability of the nuclear weapons force should
be scientifically based, without regard for politics, and of
the highest quality and integrity.
(c) Advice and Opinions Regarding Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile.--Any director of a nuclear weapons laboratory or
member of the Joint Nuclear Weapons Council, or the Commander
of United States Strategic Command, may submit to the
President or Congress advice or opinion in disagreement with,
or in addition to, the advice presented by the Secretary of
Energy or Secretary of Defense to the President, the National
Security Council, or Congress, as the case may be, regarding
the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons
stockpile.
(d) Expression of Individual Views.--A representative of
the President may not take any action against, or otherwise
constrain, a director of a nuclear weapons laboratory, a
member of the Joint Nuclear Weapons Council, or the Commander
of United States Strategic Command for presenting individual
views to the President, the National Security Council, or
Congress regarding the safety, security, and reliability of
the nuclear weapons stockpile.
(e) Definitions.--
(1) Representative of the president.--The term
``representative of the President'' means the following:
(A) Any official of the Department of Defense, the
Department of Energy, or the Office of Management and Budget
who is appointed by the President.
(B) Any member of the National Security Council.
(C) Any member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(2) Nuclear weapons laboratory.--The term ``nuclear weapons
laboratory'' means any of the following:
(A) Los Alamos National Laboratory.
(B) Livermore National Laboratory.
(C) Sandia National Laboratories.

The amendment (No. 607), as modified further, is as follows:

At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1075. LIMITATION ON USE OF COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
FUNDS FOR DESTRUCTION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

(a) Limitation.--No funds authorized to be appropriated
under this or any other Act for fiscal year 1998 for
Cooperative Threat Reduction programs may be obligated or
expended for chemical weapons destruction activities,
including for the planning, design, or construction of a
chemical weapons destruction facility or for the
dismantlement of an existing chemical weapons production
facility, until the President submits to Congress a written
certification under subsection (b).
(b) Presidential Certification.--A certification under this
subsection is either of the following certifications:
(1) A certification that--
(A) Russia is making reasonable progress toward the
implementation of the Bilateral Destruction Agreement;
(B) the United States and Russia have made substantial
progress toward the resolution, to the satisfaction of the
United States, of outstanding compliance issues under the
Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding and the Bilateral
Destruction Agreement; and
(C) 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.
(2) A certification that the national security interests of
the United States could be undermined by a United States
policy not to carry out chemical weapons destruction
activities under the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs
for which funds are authorized to be appropriated under this
or any other Act for fiscal year 1998.
(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. 799

Mr. LOTT. If I could be recognized to speak on this amendment.
Does the Senator from New Mexico wish to modify his amendment? I
would like to make sure I am speaking on the amendment that is before
the body before I speak on this amendment.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, yes, I do intend to modify the
amendment, so that it strikes $118 million that was added by the
committee for the space-based laser, and I will delete the portion of
the earlier amendment that I offered which allocated those funds to the
Air Force and the Navy flying hours.
Mr. LOTT. If I could ask the Senator to respond to this question:
Would that knock out the entire funding for the space-based laser?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, that does not. It leaves the funding at
the level the administration requested, which is $29 million, but it
would delete the initial $118 million that was added by the committee.
Mr. LOTT. So in the bill now there is about $145 million?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, $148 million in the bill at the present
time, and this gets it back to the administration requested level of
$49.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just so the Members will understand fully
what the Senator from New Mexico is doing, his amendment, as I
understand it, would knock out $118 million, leaving only $28.8 million
to be available for the space-based laser program.
I rise to offer my support for this space-based laser and to oppose
the amendment to strike funding of this important program. Clearly, one
of the most serious threats facing us today is that of ballistic
missiles. As rogue nations or terrorist organizations have the ability
to develop more sophisticated means to deploy weapons of mass
destruction, it is incumbent upon us, then, to develop the wherewithal
to render those threats ineffective. Increasing funding for other
programs, as the Senator originally intended, by taking it out of the
space-based laser would have been a mistake, and I think to have this
kind of cutback down to only $28 million reduces our ability to really
develop the sophistication and the degree of the development of the
program that we have the capability to reach.
It is time that we actually do something on this now. We have talked
about it, we have had funding, we have had progress made, there has
been real development capability reached, yet we continue to sort of
shove it off and say, ``Someday. Right now this threat is not serious
enough.'' I maintain it is very serious.

[[Page S7187]]

We currently have no effective defense to counter the ballistic
missile threat, particularly in the early launch phases when defensive
measures are the most effective. I think the American people would be
alarmed if they had an opportunity to stop and think about this, the
fact that we have not developed this effective defense to this threat.
Space-based laser offers potentially one of the most effective
solutions to this threat, utilizing relatively mature technologies for
boost phase missile defense because we have been working on this,
because we have expended funds in this area. So not only does this
capability provide an effective protective blanket, but it also serves
as a strong deterrent against the launch in the first place, as the
boost phase interceptor ensures a destroyed missile falls within the
short range of the launch site. So that is a very important factor. It
would be a deterrent to launching in the first place, if you knew it
might, as a matter of fact, land generally in the area or in the
country that fired such a missile.
This inherent capability offers the initial and most effective
defense against ballistic missiles. Coupled with terminal and midcourse
defenses that we are now procuring, it provides an architecture that is
robust to a wide variety of threats.
Moreover, the program is achievable, it is achievable, within current
technical and political constraints. The program received a very
positive endorsement from the Ballistic Missile Defense Office
Independent Review Team which has assessed the program as low risk and
capable of achieving a 2005 launch goal, yet it is fully compliant with
the ABM Treaty. It in no way commits to us an operational system, but
it is absolutely essential to the research and development efforts that
preserve our option for such a program in the future.
Space-based laser is clearly the future national missile defense
system of choice. It affords us the opportunity to protect the Nation,
our military forces and our allies against the ever-growing threat for
ballistic missile-deployed weapons of mass destruction. In fact, I
think it is the greatest threat that we face today in the world. We
cannot ignore it. We should not delay taking actions any further.
The early boost phase negation potential that spaced-based lasers can
provide is essential. It is a critical component of our future national
defense. We must ensure that the space-based option is carried forward
with vigor and a sense of priority. If we cut it down to only $28
million, or something short of $29 million, we are not going to be able
to go forward with this mature program in a vigorous way in one that
gives it priority.

By the way, the people we have running this program now are very good
and they are doing a good job. They have gotten the Secretary of
Defense's attention to this program. So as this technology matures, I
think it is clear that we now are at the point where we should build a
demonstrator and show that, in fact, it will work.
I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for the work he has done on
this, both in the committee and on the floor. Senator Smith is prepared
to debate this issue further. Without his efforts, without his
attention, this program would not be where it is today and we would not
be able to go forward with it in the way we need to now.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment to cut the bulk
of the funding for the space laser program.
Mr. President, I thank the chairman again for his support in this
area. This is something we clearly should be doing. I hope the
amendment will be defeated.
I yield the floor.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Robert
Simon, who is detailed to my staff from the Department of Energy, be
permitted privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate and
during any votes occurring on that bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 799, As Modified

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send a modified version of the
amendment to the desk and ask that it be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 799), as modified, is as follows:

At the end of subtitle A of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1009. DECREASED AMOUNTS FOR SPACE BASED LASER PROGRAM.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the total
amount authorized to be appropriated under section 201(4) for
the space based laser program shall be reduced by
$118,000,000, and not more than $28,800,000 shall be
available for the space based laser program.

Amendment No. 647

(Purpose: (Relating to the participation of the national security
activities of the Department of Energy in the Hispanic Outreach
Initiative of the Department)

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order
for me to offer an amendment numbered 647. I think it has been cleared
on both sides. I will describe it once the clerk has reported the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an
amendment numbered 647.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 458, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. 3159. PARTICIPATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY ACTIVITIES IN
HISPANIC OUTREACH INITIATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY.

The Secretary of Energy shall take appropriate actions,
including the allocation of funds, to ensure the
participation of the national security activities of the
Department of Energy in the Hispanic Outreach Initiative of
the Department of Energy.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes the Secretary
of Energy to ensure full participation of the Department of Energy in
the very successful Hispanic Outreach Program that that department has
had.
In September 1995, the Secretary of Energy announced a strategic plan
to address the needs, talents and capabilities of the nation's Hispanic
community.
This strategic plan calls for the Department to take effective steps
to further the participation of DOE in educational programs,
particularly in the fields of science and technology that serve
Hispanic students.
In fiscal year 1996 the DOE set a goal of $20 million for funding
Hispanic Service Educational Institutions and Initiatives. This level
of investment provides significant dividends to the Hispanic community
as well as to the Department of Energy.
Other programs are included within the Hispanic Outreach Initiative
to encourage improved investment, training, and placement for Hispanic
population in business using the internet and the Hispanic Radio
Network.
As a result of such initiatives, Hispanic employment at the
Department of Energy has increased at all grade levels during the past
four years.
The amendment I am offering today directs the Secretary of Energy to
ensure that all components of the Department participate fully in this
initiative in order to achieve the widest possible impact.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment as an
effective means to benefit the taxpayer and improve opportunities for
the Hispanic community.
I believe we can take action on the amendment at this point. I know
of no Senator that wishes to speak in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 647) was agreed to.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask we lay aside the pending business
and consider amendment 657.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I object. I wish to speak on the
amendment that is before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Reserving the right to object, if the
Senator wishes to speak for a couple of minutes on another matter, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senator's time does not come out of the
time allocated for this amendment.

[[Page S7188]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would not.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I have no objection.

Amendment No. 657

(Purpose: To provide for increased burdensharing by United States
allies)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 657.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1075. DEFENSE BURDENSHARING.

(a) Efforts To Increase Allied Burdensharing.--The
President shall seek to have each nation that has cooperative
military relations with the United States (including security
agreements, basing arrangements, or mutual participation in
multinational military organizations or operations) take one
or more of the following actions:
(1) For any nation in which United States military
personnel are assigned to permanent duty ashore, increase its
financial contributions to the payment of the nonpersonnel
costs incurred by the United States Government for stationing
United States military personnel in that nation, with a goal
of achieving by September 30, 2000, 75 percent of such costs.
An increase in financial contributions by any nation under
this paragraph may include the elimination of taxes, fees, or
other charges levied on United States military personnel,
equipment, or facilities stationed in that nation.
(2) Increase its annual budgetary outlays for national
defense as a percentage of its gross domestic product by 10
percent or at least to a level commensurate to that of the
United States by September 30, 1998.
(3) Increase its annual budgetary outlays for foreign
assistance (to promote democratization, economic
stabilization, transparency arrangements, defense economic
conversion, respect for the rule of law, and internationally
recognized human rights) by 10 percent or at least to a level
commensurate to that of the United States by September 30,
1998.
(4) Increase the amount of military assets (including
personnel, equipment, logistics, support and other resources)
that it contributes, or would be prepared to contribute, to
multinational military activities worldwide.
(b) Authorities To Encourage Actions by United States
Allies.--In seeking the actions described in subsection (a)
with respect to any nation, or in response to a failure by
any nation to undertake one or more of such actions, the
President may take any of the following measures to the
extent otherwise authorized by law:
(1) Reduce the end strength level of members of the Armed
Forces assigned to permanent duty ashore in that nation.
(2) Impose on that nation fees or other charges similar to
those that such nation imposes on United States forces
stationed in that nation.
(3) Reduce (through rescission, impoundment, or other
appropriate procedures as authorized by law) the amount the
United States contributes to the NATO Civil Budget, Military
Budget, or Security Investment Program.
(4) Suspend, modify, or terminate any bilateral security
agreement the United States has with that nation, consistent
with the terms of such agreement.
(5) Reduce (through rescission, impoundment or other
appropriate procedures as authorized by law) any United
States bilateral assistance appropriated for that nation.
(6) Take any other action the President determines to be
appropriate as authorized by law.
(c) Report on Progress in Increasing Allied
Burdensharing.--Not later than March 1, 1998, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on--
(1) steps taken by other nations to complete the actions
described in subsection (a);
(2) all measures taken by the President, including those
authorized in subsection (b), to achieve the actions
described in subsection (a);
(3) the difference between the amount allocated by other
nations for each of the actions described in subsection (a)
during the period beginning on March 1, 1996, and ending on
February 28, 1997, and during the period beginning on March
1, 1997, and ending on February 28, 1998; and
(4) the budgetary savings to the United States that are
expected to accrue as a result of the steps described under
paragraph (1).
(d) Report on National Security Bases for Forward
Deployment and Burdensharing Relationships.--(1) In order to
ensure the best allocation of budgetary resources, the
President shall undertake a review of the status of elements
of the United States Armed Forces that are permanently
stationed outside the United States. The review shall include
an assessment of the following:
(A) The alliance requirements that are to be found in
agreements between the United States and other countries.
(B) The national security interests that support
permanently stationing elements of the United States Armed
Forces outside the United States.
(C) The stationing costs associated with the forward
deployment of elements of the United States Armed Forces.
(D) The alternatives available to forward deployment (such
as material prepositioning, enhanced airlift and sealift, or
joint training operations) to meet such alliance requirements
or national security interests, with such alternatives
identified and described in detail.
(E) The costs and force structure configurations associated
with such alternatives to forward deployment.
(F) The financial contributions that allies of the United
States make to common defense efforts (to promote
democratization, economic stabilization, transparency
arrangements, defense economic conversion, respect for the
rule of law, and internationally recognized human rights).
(G) The contributions that allies of the United States make
to meeting the stationing costs associated with the forward
deployment of elements of the United States Armed Forces.
(H) The annual expenditures of the United States and its
allies on national defense, and the relative percentages of
each nation's gross domestic product constituted by those
expenditures.
(2) The President shall submit to Congress a report on the
review under paragraph (1). The report shall be submitted not
later than March 1, 1998, in classified and unclassified
form.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this amendment has been reviewed by both
sides. Senator Thurmond, as chairman of the committee, and Senator
Levin, as the ranking minority member, have accepted this amendment. It
relates to the issue of burdensharing. It is an amendment which would
not withdraw any troops, but would ask that our allies assume greater
responsibility in helping to defray the expenses of the American troops
which have been positioned overseas.
The amendment, I think, accurately reflects the postcold-war
environment and the budget challenges which we face.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 657) was agreed to.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 799, As Modified

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President how much time remains on
our side on this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes and 30 seconds.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the
Bingaman amendment which would cut funding for the space-based laser
program--not just cuts it, it devastates the program.
In its markup of the DOD authorization bill, the committee increased
the funding for the program by $118 million. During the committee's
markup, the Senator from New Mexico did offer an amendment to delete
the increase. This was defeated in committee on a bipartisan basis. It
was not a party-line vote. It is my sincere hope, Mr. President, that
the Senate will follow suit as the committee did and defeat this
amendment today or tomorrow when we vote.
Mr. President, let me explain why additional funds are needed for
this very important program. The President's budget request included
only $30 million for the space-based laser. This is insufficient
funding for the program to continue making the technical progress that
it has been making.
The Department of Defense is currently considering ways to increase
this level of funding in the outyears, but there is a major deficit now
for the Fiscal Year 1998. This program, the space-based laser, is the
last remaining space-based laser missile defense left. The last one. If
we allow the program to die, then we will have wasted well over $1
billion in investment, literally wasted. We will not see the fruits of
that investment and we will have given up the option of deploying the
most effective national and theater boost phase missile defense system
known to man.
The space-based laser program has been one of the best managed
programs in the history of our ballistic missile

[[Page S7189]]

defense efforts. It is not always the case that we can stand here and
say that a program has been well managed. For over 10 years it has
continued to make remarkable technical progress while remaining on
schedule and within cost. How many other programs in DOD, or, indeed,
in the U.S. Government, can we say that about? Not too many.

Mr. President, could I have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, if we do not allow the
space-based laser program to proceed, we are going to erode the Defense
Department's expertise in laser technology. There are other laser
programs in DOD. The SBL, the space-based laser, represents a
significant proportion of DOD's corporate knowledge about lasers and
all of DOD's knowledge about space-based lasers. All this knowledge,
all of this technology will simply be thrown out the window if we gut
this program.
This program has strong bipartisan support. It has had it for over
many years. The Armed Services Committee has increased funding for this
program in each of the last two fiscal years. In fiscal year 1997, for
example, the committee recommended and the Congress and the President
approved an increase of $70 million. DOD acknowledges that the
additional funding is necessary if the program is to continue making
the technical progress that it is making.
Therefore, the bill before the Senate today, the bill in its current
form, the DOD bill, includes an increase of $118 million for that
program. This amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico will
take that $118 billion out and basically stop the program in process.
I must say, every year, year after year, in all the 7 years that I
have been on the Armed Services Committee here in the Senate, somebody
comes out and tries to cut this program. Every year I am standing up
here defending it, trying to make people aware of the importance of
this program.
Let me explain why this specific funding level was chosen. The SBL
program will complete its current development phase this year. The next
logical step for a space-based laser is to develop and launch a
technology readiness demonstrator. This is, in fact, the recommendation
of an independent review team, the IRT, that was established by the
director of the ballistic missile defense organization earlier this
year to study the future of the SBL program.
The IRT recommended proceeding with a space demonstrator in fiscal
year 1998 that could be launched in the year 2005. The funding increase
in the pending bill is the same amount as that recommended by BMDO,
Ballistic Missile Defense Office's independent review team--no more, no
less. Such an SBL technology demonstrator would be compliant with the
ABM Treaty. For those who are concerned about that, it is treaty
compliant. And both Secretary of Defense Cohen and officials from the
National Security Council have confirmed that an SBL readiness
demonstrator would be treaty compliant as long as it is not an
operational system prototype.
Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order. The
Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Additionally, the Department of Defense
compliance review group has previously reviewed the SBL readiness
demonstrator and deemed such a program compliant with the ABM Treaty.
So the Air Force and BMDO have signed a memorandum of agreement to
proceed with the SBL program. The Air Force and BMDO endorsed the
development of an SBL readiness demonstrator and have done the
preliminary work on how to proceed with such a program, and the Air
Force has said if such a program proceeds, they will establish this
program management office at the Philips lab at Kirkland Air Force base
in New Mexico.
The bottom line is, a readiness demonstrator is the next logical step
for SBL. It doesn't commit the United States to deployment or
development of an operational SBL system, but it preserves the option
for that decision after the year 2005. If the Bingaman amendment were
to be agreed to, this option would be precluded and we would be left
with a space-based laser program lacking focus and lacking any logical
direction. It is one of those situations where if we do take the focus
and take the direction away, it makes all the money we have spent in
the past, all the $1 billion, wasted, down the drain, when we are now
on the threshold of being able to see it all come to fruition and see
the space-based laser program take its proper place in the defense
arsenal of the United States.
So I urge my colleagues tomorrow, when we vote, to oppose this
amendment as we have done year after year after year, to oppose the
amendment of the Senator from New Mexico and defeat the amendment, and
allow the space-based laser program to continue.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9 a.m. on
Friday, Senator Feingold be recognized to offer an amendment, re: Air
Force jets, and there be 30 minutes for debate, 20 minutes under the
control of Senator Feingold, 10 minutes under the control of Senator
Thurmond, and no amendments be in order to the Feingold amendment. My
understanding is it has been cleared on the other side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. At 9:30 a.m., the Senate will resume the Bingaman
amendment, with 15 minutes remaining for debate and a vote occurring at
9:45 a.m. on Friday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding the distinguished
Senator from Arizona and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts
will engage in a debate on a matter that is related to the underlying
measure.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, a number of us will be proceeding,
momentarily, on an amendment with respect to Cambodia. I am just
waiting for the language to arrive.
Mr. President, I understand, under parliamentary procedure, the time
is controlled?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time--
Mr. McCAIN. I believe the parliamentary situation is an amendment by
Senator Warner and Senator Hutchison. Could I ask for the parliamentary
situation, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the Bingaman amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we would then lay that aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 14 minutes for Senator Bingaman and
1 minute, 49 seconds in opposition.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Under the previous
unanimous consent request just propounded by the Senator from Virginia
on behalf of the distinguished leader, Mr. Lott, and the chairman, Mr.
Thurmond, I would have thought that would have handled this situation.
Am I incorrect?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That does handle the situation in the morning,
but we still have this time remaining tonight.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, is it appropriate at this point --I ask
unanimous consent that we temporarily set aside the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry. That then preserves that amount of
time left to each side tonight, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, are we now open to amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we are.
Mr. KERRY. I understand there is no controlled time at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

[[Page S7190]]

Amendment No. 800

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as I mentioned, Senator Hagel, Senator Bob
Kerrey, Senator Chuck Robb, Senator Max Cleland, Senator John McCain
and myself are joining together to introduce a resolution with respect
to Cambodia. At this point, I will yield the floor. Senator McCain will
lead off.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Massachusetts will shortly be
introducing a amendment. That amendment very briefly, condemns what has
happened in Cambodia. It calls for the United States to take action,
including cutting off any assistance that is being provided to
Cambodia. It calls on ASEAN nations in the region to cooperate in
taking every step that is possible to restore democracy and a rule of
law in Cambodia.
Mr. President, as I said, the Senator from Massachusetts will be
shortly sending that sense-of-the-Senate amendment to the desk. For the
sake of time, I would like to comment on it at this time because, as
the Senator from Massachusetts mentioned, there are four others besides
the Senator from Massachusetts and I who want to speak on this issue. I
will be relatively brief.
A terrible thing has happened in a country that deserves far, far
better; a country that has been put through, in the opinion of many,
the worst genocide in this century; a country that had a large
percentage, some estimate as high as 20 to 30 percent of its population
executed by the infamous Khmer Rouge led by Pol Pot. I need not remind
my colleagues that at great expense, some $3 billion, the United
Nations, with the full cooperation and efforts of the United States,
was able to conduct what was judged to be a free and fair election
in Cambodia. The result of that election was a democratically elected
government which had two co-prime ministers: Mr. Hun Sen and Prince
Ranariddh, the son of Prince Norodom Sihanouk.

Mr. President, I give this background because those of us who were
involved in that effort had high hopes, high hopes 4 years ago after
that election, which was conducted by and supervised by many nations
throughout the world. Now a terrible tragedy has again befallen
Cambodia. Hun Sen, using the philosophy that unfortunately he has
adhered to for some time that power is the flower that blossoms from
the barrel of a gun, has begun killing people, imprisoning people, and
has taken over the government of the country.
I grieve for the people of Cambodia. I grieve for those very gentle
Khmer people who deserve far, far better than they are getting today.
Should the United States send the military into Cambodia? Obviously
not. Should the United States advocate some military action? I don't
think that's possible. But I believe that the United States of America
must bring every possible pressure to bear on Cambodia to restore, as
soon as possible, democracy and the rule of law. We have every right to
expect our neighbors and friends in the region to lead as well as
follow the United States in this effort.
Mr. President, if we allow this to happen, it is a tremendous setback
for democracy and freedom, not only in that tragic little country but
for the entire region. If Hun Sen is able to get away with this
unpunished and if this situation goes unrectified, then I fear for
other areas of the world, including Burma, including others where
democracy has a very tenuous hold.
Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Hagel, Senator Kerrey
of Nebraska, as well as Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator
Cleland, and Senator Robb, in decrying this situation and urging that
all steps be taken to rectify it, because all of us have the
commonality of service in Vietnam, its neighbor. I believe if there is
any potency to our remarks, I hope that it is because of our collective
view, on both sides of the aisle, that urges us and impels us to come
forward and speak in this emotional and strong fashion.
Mr. President, yesterday I addressed the situation in Cambodia. I
focused my remarks on the tragedy befallen a strife-torn country that
saw the flickering light of democracy suddenly and violently
extinguished. Today, I join with a number of my colleagues to introduce
a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the violence must
stop, that the United States should call an emergency meeting of the
United Nations Security Council to consider all options to restore the
peace, to work with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to
restore the rule of law, to suspend financial assistance to the
Government of Cambodia, and to urge other donor nations to do likewise.
Congress and the administration must not minimize the gravity of the
situation in Cambodia. One of the century's most horrific chapters took
place less than 20 years ago in a nation once known for tranquility.
The end of Cambodia's holocaust did not bring peace; it brought 12
years of civil war. The culmination of an exhaustive diplomatic effort
was the 1991 Paris Accord and the 1993 election that installed the
coalition that governed until 2 days ago.
The coup d'etat instigated by Second Prime Minister Hun Sen has
seriously set back the cause of peace and freedom in Cambodia. The
deliberate and brutal campaign to locate and imprison or execute
members of FUNCINPEC loyal to ousted First Prime Minister Prince
Ranarridh illuminates all too well the nature of a regime dominated by
Hun Sen. A forceful and feared individual, Hun Sen will respond only if
the message is conveyed in the strongest terms that the international
community, led, if necessary, by the United States, will accept nothing
less than the cessation of violence and the initiation of serious
negotiations aimed at restoring a democratic form of government.
The Cambodian people demonstrated by their overwhelming response to
the 1993 elections that they truly desire to live under the rule of
law. They left no doubt that they understand and appreciate democracy.
They deserve better than to see an elected government removed by force
and replaced by the very regime that harshly ruled for years until the
1991 peace accord. We introduce this amendment because the time to act
is now. The administration must respond in the strongest terms to the
coup d'etat and resulting violence. Congress as an institution must go
on record as strenuously opposing the recent developments in Cambodia.
We must let the world know that we stand as one in our conviction to
see democracy restored in Cambodia.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I, too, rise to support the amendment that
will be offered shortly by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts
[Senator Kerry]. First of all, we must, here in this Senate, be alert
to the risk to lives of Americans in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. That is the
first order of business of this resolution. We have lives at risk
there. An Ambassador and his family's lives are at risk.
Second, though, what we are saying here is, now is not the time to
quit in Cambodia.
For all the reasons cited by Senator McCain of Arizona, all the
reasons that he has cited about the terrible suffering that has gone on
in Cambodia for the last 30 years, in addition to that, we have a
toehold of democracy there. The rule of law is at stake. An agreement
was signed in Paris in 1991, and an election with 90 percent of the
population voting in 1993, we have a great success possible in
Cambodia, and now is not the time for us to say, ``Well, it's Cambodia,
it's a long ways away, it is not important.'' It is important.
America needs to go to the Security Council of the United Nations and
say that we want to consider all options to make certain that the rule
of law and democracy survive inside Cambodia.
We need to do the same thing with our allies in ASEAN to make certain
that the rule of law and democracy survive. We need to send with this
resolution a strong message to the people of Cambodia that we are not
going to back out, we are not going to walk away, we are not going to
give up, that we believe that democracy can survive in Cambodia, that
the rule of law can be preserved in Cambodia and that the United States
of America is prepared to lead the international community in ensuring
that effort.
We have come a long ways in Cambodia. Only in the U.S. Congress is it
possible for us to say we want to change something in the world and

[[Page S7191]]

then take action and have it happen. That is what happened in Cambodia
with this agreement at a time in 1991 when almost nobody thought it was
possible, and then the election in 1993 that even fewer thought was
possible.
There is a lot at stake here for the United States of America. As we
talk to China about democracy, we do not want them to say, ``Look what
happened in Cambodia,'' or Vietnam similarly. We are a Nation that has
been successful because we have been a defender of democracy and the
rule of law, and we have to defend that principle inside the nation of
Cambodia.
I am pleased to join with the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts [Senator Kerry], and others who are cosponsoring this
resolution. It is a terribly important resolution, and I am hopeful and
believe, in fact, that the administration will take it seriously and
will act upon it. I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the Senator from
Arizona and the Senator from Nebraska, and I see the Senator from
Georgia is here, and he will speak momentarily. And the junior Senator
from Nebraska, Senator Hagel is also here.
Mr. President, each of us invested a portion of our youth in
Southeast Asia, and each of us are now investing a considerable amount
of our concern as U.S. Senators of both parties with events as they
continue in Southeast Asia. All of us remain convinced that this is a
region that is vital to our international security interests. It is an
area where we have a great deal at stake, and nowhere more so, really,
than in Cambodia.
As everybody knows, as a matter of history, the United States played
a critical role in the 1970's in events in Cambodia. And ever since
then, the Cambodian people have been reaping the harvest of much of
what has gone on in the region as a whole--the invasion by Vietnam, the
influence of China and, most important, the terrible, terrible acts of
the Khmer Rouge, the ``killing fields'' as we came to know them in this
country.

It is ironic that at the very moment when the Khmer Rouge is at its
weakest in recent years, when Pol Pot appears to be a prisoner and when
the leadership has defected, when the army, as a whole, has decided to
come into the system, that the system is now itself in convulsions and
rejecting the process that so many people in the international
community have invested so much in over the last years.
More than $2 billion has been invested in Cambodia by the
international community. We have put shy of $200 million into Cambodia,
but we have invested enormously in the notion that democracy can work
in a region where it is important to prove that democracy can work. It
is very important to all of us in the U.S. Senate and to the United
Nations to guarantee that we are not now going to stand by and watch or
refuse to be engaged or to take sufficient diplomatic steps to, once
again, summon the energy of the world to try to help restore in this
critical moment the rule of law and democracy in Cambodia.
The amendment that we offer sets forth a set of specific steps that
we think should be taken by the administration and others in order to
try to guarantee that we do restore peace and democracy to Cambodia.
Those steps are, first of all, that the parties should immediately
cease the use of violence in Cambodia; second, that the United States
should take all immediate necessary steps to ensure the safety of
Americans in Cambodia; third, that the United States should call an
emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to consider
all options that are available to us in order to restore peace in
Cambodia; fourth, that the United States and ASEAN together should try
to take all steps necessary to restore democracy and the rule of law in
Cambodia; fifth, that United States assistance to the Government of
Cambodia should remain suspended until violence ends the democratically
elected government is restored to power, and necessary steps have been
taken to ensure that the elections scheduled for 1998 are going to be
held; and finally, that the United States should take all necessary
steps to encourage other donor nations to stop their assistance as part
of a multinational effort.
Mr. President, I have traveled to Cambodia on a number of different
occasions, together with Senator Smith when we were doing the work of
the POW-MIA Committee, and I have traveled other than on those
journeys. I met at great length with Prime Minister Hun Sen, perhaps
for a longer period of time and on more occasions than anyone in the
Senate, and I can say to my colleagues that he is a tough and hard
bargainer and, clearly, a survivor of the wars of that region. But he
is an intelligent person who, ultimately, I believe, will be committed
to the restoration of the fundamentals of the process that we invested
in in Paris. It would be my hope and plea that Second Prime Minister
Hun Sen would respect all of the investment of outside nations and all
of the energies of those nations over the years in order to try to
sustain the extraordinarily important effort that we have engaged in to
try to provide democracy for this region.
In 1993, 90 percent of the eligible voters of Cambodia went to the
polls and expressed their wish to have an elected government, and that
elected government has now been rejected by violence in the last few
days. There is no other word to use but to use the word ``coup.'' I
know our Government has hesitated to do that, but for the last 3 days,
that is what has existed. Certainly, one would hope that will not be
what remains there, and there is time yet to prove to the world that
this was not a successful coup if the international community
undertakes an emergency momentary effort to restore order and the long-
term capacity of the Cambodian People's Party and FUNCINPEC to
cooperate with each other as well as with incipient new parties that
want to express their political views in a democratic Cambodia.
But what is clear, Mr. President, is that absent massive, urgent
diplomatic energy expended by the United States and by those countries
that have already invested so much, this moment could slip by, and the
great tragedy would be that as the Khmer Rouge have come out of the
jungle, as Cambodia has been accepted into ASEAN, as we have suddenly
extended most-favored-nation status, as it has moved into this new
economic acceptance and new era of possibilities, it will have
reverted, by some inexorable and unexplainable force, to the very
violence that characterized it for so long.
That doesn't have to happen, and this amendment is an effort to
guarantee that it will not happen. So my hope is that the thrust of
this effort will be heard, not just in Cambodia, but in the United
Nations and in our own State Department and among those nations that
have already committed so much energy. We cannot and we must not allow
these events to go unattended. It is my hope this expression of our
views will act as a catalyst to prevent that from happening.
I understand that my colleagues also would like to speak.
Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk, and I ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending
amendment will be set aside. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself,
Mr. McCain, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Robb, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Cleland and
Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 800.

Mr. KERRY. 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 appropriate place in the bill, add the following new
section:

SEC.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1) during the 1970s and 1980s Cambodia was wracked by
political conflict, war and violence, including genocide
perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1979;
(2) the 1991 Paris Agreements on a Comprehensive Political
Settlement of the Cambodia Conflict set the stage for a
process of political accommodation and national
reconciliation among Cambodia's warring parties;
(3) the international community engaged in a massive, more
than $2 billion effort to ensure peace, democracy and
prosperity in Cambodia following the Paris Accords;

[[Page S7192]]

(4) the Cambodian people clearly demonstrated their support
for democracy when 90 percent of eligible Cambodian voters
participated in UN-sponsored elections in 1993;
(5) since the 1993 elections, Cambodia has made economic
progress, as evidenced by the decision last month of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations to extend membership
to Cambodia;
(6) tensions within the ruling Cambodian coalition have
erupted into violence in recent months as both parties
solicit support from former Khmer Rouge elements, which had
been increasingly marginalized in Cambodian politics;
(7) in March, 19 Cambodians were killed and more than 100
were wounded in a grenade attack on political demonstrators
supportive of the Funcinpec and the Khmer Nation Party;
(8) during June fighting erupted in Phnom Penh between
forces loyal to First Prime Minister Prince Ranariddh and
second Prime Minister Hun Sen;
(9) on July 5, Second Prime Minister Hun Sen deposed the
First Prime Minister in a violent coup d'etat;
(10) forces loyal to Hun Sen have executed former Interior
Minister Ho Sok, and targeted other political opponents loyal
to Prince Ranariddh;
(11) democracy and stability in Cambodia are threatened by
the continued use of violence to resolve political tensions;
(12) the Administration has suspended assistance for one
month in response to the deteriorating situation in Cambodia;
(13) the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has decided
to delay indefinitely Cambodian membership.
(b) Sense of Congress--It is the sense of Congress that:
(1) the parties should immediately cease the use of
violence in Cambodia;
(2) the United States should take all necessary steps to
ensure the safety of American citizens in Cambodia;
(3) the United States should call an emergency meeting of
the United Nations Security Council to consider all options
to restore peace in Cambodia;
(4) the United States and ASEAN should work together to
take immediate steps to restore democracy and the rule of law
in Cambodia;
(5) U.S. assistance to the government of Cambodia should
remain suspended until violence ends, the democratically
elected government is restored to power, and the necessary
steps have been taken to ensure that the elections scheduled
for 1998 take place;
(6) the United States should take all necessary steps to
encourage other donor nations to suspend assistance as part
of a multinational effort

Mr. CLELAND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. The United States is the
leader of the free world. As the world's foremost democracy, it is our
duty to take the lead in support of democratic efforts around the
world. This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the United
States should work with the U.N. Security Council and the ASEAN nations
in an effort to return Cambodia to the path towards democracy that it
was on.
The First Prime Minister of Cambodia, Prince Norodom Ranariddh, has
asked the U.N. Security Council for help. Cambodian Co-Premier Hun Sen
seized power on Saturday. In light of the terrible tragedies the
Cambodian people have seen over the past several decades, it would be a
complete shame to allow outstanding progress toward democracy to be
destroyed in one weekend of violence.
It is very important to restore the constitutional government to
Cambodia. Cambodia is scheduled to have elections in May of 1998. It is
fear of the democratic process which I believe has led to this coup.
Opponents of the coup have already been killed. We cannot allow
democracy to fail to take root in this nation. The United States must
take the lead in this matter.
I urge, in the strongest terms, the Senate adopt this amendment. I
yield the floor.
Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the other five Senators
who are the original cosponsors of this particular amendment/sense-of-
the-Senate resolution. I join in the gravity that they have already
expressed and underlined about the situation that exists now in
Cambodia. All of us have spent time in the region. Many of us have
spent time in Cambodia dealing with the principal figures that are
involved in this particular incident. I myself have visited Phnom Penh
on a number of occasions. I have met in Cambodia with First Prime
Minister Ranariddh, as well as Co- or Second Prime Minister Hun Sen on
a number of occasions there and on at least one occasion here. I am
familiar with the difficulties. I watched the process evolve. I
observed the time period when the United Nations forces were there
helping to try to restore a semblance of stability and to try to
develop some respect for the rule of law. We saw elections. Ninety
percent of the people in Cambodia voted in those elections. We know the
difficulties that existed from the very outset.
As my colleagues who fought in Vietnam have already suggested, we
have a clash of leadership. Co-Premier Hun Sen is a strong and forceful
leader. All of us who have met with him understand that. This, in
effect, internationally is an appeal for him to understand that the
United States cannot abide the conduct that he has been associated with
or that has been carried out in his name in the last few days. We
cannot stand by and allow additional genocide, additional violence,
which is beyond the rule of law, to be condoned.
I happened to be the sponsor of a resolution several years ago that
provided for the collection of information that would be essential to
any international tribunal that may deal with the atrocities that were
committed by the Khmer Rouge in that terrible period under the
leadership of Pol Pot and others who were involved in that particular
period of genocide in Cambodia. Much progress has been made on that
front.
Much progress was being made in terms of understanding in Cambodia
for the rule of law and some essential elements of peace. All of this
represents a setback. It is essential, as this resolution suggests,
that the United States exercise its leadership, working with ASEAN,
getting ASEAN to get involved as it is at least demonstrating some
initial signs of doing even though it is not a military organization,
and the international community to speak with one voice and say to
those who would purport to represent the violent approach to taking and
seizing power that is not obtained through the ballot, that the
international community will not support you.
That is what this resolution that the six of us who fought in Vietnam
are saying to our Government, please take a leadership role in
mobilizing the international community to send a very strong message to
Hun Sen and those who follow his lead and send a message to the rest of
the international community to fall behind the progress that has
already been made in Cambodia and not to step back with the actions
that have been taken in the last few days.
We want to tell Hun Sen and others who might follow that lead that
not only we cannot support that, we are going to be actively opposing
that and hope that the rule of law and some degree of political
pluralism and respect for the principles of peace and democracy could
be restored.
With that, Mr. President, recognizing the presence on the floor of my
colleague from Nebraska, the junior Senator, Senator Hagel, and in
joining with Senator McCain from Arizona, Senator Kerry from
Massachusetts, Senator Kerrey from Nebraska, and Senator Cleland from
Georgia, I am pleased to support this particular amendment in the form
of a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I ask all of our colleagues to do
likewise.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President. Could I just ask my colleague's indulgence
for one moment?
Mr. HAGEL. Yes.
Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms be added as a
cosponsor. I believe you have Senator Biden on there as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this evening to support and
cosponsor the amendment that has been brought to the floor by my
distinguished friend and colleague from Massachusetts, representing the
six Vietnam veterans serving in the U.S. Senate with our view of what
has happened in Cambodia as well as now the distinguished Senator from
North Carolina, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations

[[Page S7193]]

Committee. And I hope that all of our colleagues join in supporting
this resolution.
I echo, Mr. President, and very much support what my colleagues have
said tonight about the tragedy that has befallen Cambodia. I would only
add, Mr. President, that at a time in our world when we are reaching
out to secure more freedom for peoples around the world, secure more
stability, that we have talked about and will debate in detail NATO
expansion, and we are currently involved in Bosnia, we must not forget
the other corners of the globe. Certainly what we as a free country,
the leader of the free world, have invested in Cambodia, in that part
of the world, is very important.
This is a serious matter, Mr. President. It is serious not just for
Cambodia, but it is serious for that part of the world because
instability in that part of the world leads to great tragedy. We know
that firsthand, some of us in this body. It is very important. It is
essential that the leadership of this Nation be brought foursquare. We
enlist the ASEAN nations and other nations to support our efforts to be
able to lead Cambodia back to a time when there is the rule of law and
there is security and there is stability.
Hopefully, this resolution presented tonight will be a good
beginning. I add as well, Mr. President, the administration has taken
action today. The ASEAN nations have taken action. But we need more.
I only add this as a summary statement to what we are doing this
evening. It is critical, as we enter this new century, that all that
has been invested in southeast Asia in blood and treasure, not just
Americans, but our friends from Australia, South Korea, all over that
area, to make sure that we do not slip back into a morass of tyranny
and lose progress that we have so diligently fought for over the years.
Mr. President, I very much hope that all of our colleagues will
strongly support this resolution.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to condemn the coup that
occurred in Cambodia this past Sunday.
I want to put special emphasis on the word ``coup'' because the
United States State Department has been reluctant to use this term to
describe the events in Phnom Penh. The facts, however, leave no doubt.
On Sunday, troops loyal to Hun Sen, Cambodia's second prime minister,
attacked the forces of Prince Norodom Ranariddh, Cambodia's first prime
minister and leader of the royalist party known as FUNCINPEC. According
to news reports, Hun Sen's army is currently rounding up political
opponents. Already, at least one senior royalist official has been
executed. As an added insult to the Cambodian people, Hun Sen's forces
have been looting shops in the capital.
I am sure my colleagues will agree that Hun Sen's use of military
force to oust his rivals and take sole control of Cambodia's government
is, by definition, a coup d'etat.
Hun Sen is a man who has always preferred the gun over the ballot. In
1993, his party was defeated by the royalists in the United Nations-
sponsored elections. Nearly 90 percent of eligible voters participated
in that historic event. Even though he lost the election, Hun Sen
threatened to restart Cambodia's civil war unless he was named as a
second prime minister alongside Prince Ranariddh. In an effort to avoid
further bloodshed, the U.N. agreed to let the two factions govern
together.
After uneasily sharing power for 4 years, this clumsy coalition
finally began to unravel this year. On March 30, 20 people were
murdered in Phnom Penh when gunmen fired grenades into a peaceful
opposition rally. Investigations have linked Hun Sen's troops to this
cowardly attack. The political violence in Cambodia has only grown
worse in the weeks since that tragic event.
The only good news to emerge from Cambodia in recent weeks was the
capture of Pol Pot, the genocidal leader of the Khmer Rouge. The ruler
of Cambodia between 1975 and 1979, Pol Pot is responsible for the
deaths of as many as one million people. This notorious war criminal
was taken prisoner by Khmer Rouge defectors who indicated a willingess
to turn him over to the government. Hun Sen's takeover, however, may
jeopardize efforts to have Pol Pot brought to Phnom Pehn and eventually
extradited to an international tribunal.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the
July 9 edition of the Washington Post be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Calling a Coup a Coup

To many Americans, the latest combat in Cambodia's capital
may seem like inexplicable infighting among equally tainted
political factions. It's not. It's basically a coup d'etat.
Cambodia's tragic history leads some diplomats and others
to consider hopeless the cause of democracy there. Certainly
the Southeast Asian nation has had more than its share of
seemingly mortal blows--above all the unspeakable Khmer Rough
genocide. And none of Cambodia's factions is untainted by the
bloody past. Yet few observers considered democracy hopeless
in 1993, when an astonishing 89 percent of voters went to the
polls despite threats of violence and actual attacks. A
United Nations-led transition was hailed as a model for
democracy-building.
Almost from the start, though, those courageous voters did
not get the international support they needed. Hun Sen, the
Vietnamese-installed ruler from 1979 to 1993, and his
People's Party unexpectedly lost the election, despite a
campaign of intimidation against other parties. Yet, again
through coercion and threat of force, he was permitted to
muscle into the government as co-prime minister, essentially
negating the election results.
Since then, the United States and its allies have given
Cambodia substantial amounts of aid. But they have not
conditioned it on further democratization, such as the
establishment of independent courts, election commission and
other institutions. There was little protest when Hun Sen's
party began forcing independent voices out of the government,
refusing to register new political parties and otherwise
moving to reimpose one-party ruler.
This weekend military forces loyal to Hun Sen attacked and,
at least in the capital, defeated forces loyal to the other
co-prime minister. Prince Norodom Ranariddh, who has fled to
Paris. Now Hun Sen's troops are said to be rounding up
political enemies; at lease one senior offical from the
losing side is reported to have been executed. In the
countryside, a civil war may be resuming.
Yesterday U.S. officials properly condemned Hun Sen's use
of force, while still declining to label it a coup--becasue
then the law would require a cutoff of aid. The international
community needs to do more. Before all hope is lost of
getting Cambodia democratization back on tract, the United
States as well as Cambodia's neighbor in ASEAN should make
clear that they will not recognize a government installed by
coup d'etat, that they will not keep giving aid to an
illegitimate regime and that they won't accept any phony
elections organized in an effort to pretty up the coup.
Anything less is a disservice to these 89 percent.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the editorial, ``Calling a Coup a
Coup,'' argues that the United States and the international community
should condemn Hun Sen's actions as a coup and halt aid to his
government.
Mr. President, I agree. I believe the administration should
officially recognize Hun Sen's actions as a coup. This is the right
policy. While nobody wants to increase the suffering of the Cambodian
people, the United States cannot legitimize Hun Sen's actions by
maintaining the current flow of aid and development assistance.
As we all know, the United Nations spent over $2 billion in 1993 to
bring peace and democracy to Cambodia. We made a large investment, but
an important one. Now, even though this long-suffering nation appears
to be slipping back into a civil war, we should not conclude that the
efforts of the United States and the international community have been
in vain. In 1993, Cambodia's citizens overwhelmingly rejected tyranny,
and they will do so again.
U.S. support for democracy, though, will seem shallow if we do not
take action against the use of violence. Like the military dictators of
Burma, the Hun Sen regime too should be subject to the toughest
sanctions. The United States must do all it can to insure that Hun Sen
does not become the next Cambodian dictator.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I do not believe there is any further
debate on the amendment.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend Senator Kerry and the other
sponsors of this amendment. They have served this Nation with
tremendous courage in so many ways. And again

[[Page S7194]]

they serve the Nation tonight and the world tonight by bringing to our
attention, for our action as they propose, the situation in Cambodia.
I just want to simply say that not only does this Senator support
them, but I believe that I am speaking for every Senator in this body
that we feel strongly that not only have these Senators given so much
in the past, but again they are reflecting the best of this democracy
in speaking out against what is happening now in Cambodia. I just
simply want to thank them and say how much this Senator supports their
work, how much we appreciate the dedication and the values of this
Nation reflected in this resolution.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my
distinguished colleague from Michigan. The Senate is indeed fortunate
to have these three men who have proven themselves on the field of
combat and who now bring that same wealth of experience to bear on this
critical issue.
In many respects, in the Senate, because of just simply the times,
the demographics, fewer and fewer in number have served in uniform in
farflung areas of the world to gain that firsthand experience which is
so vital to bring to bear on critical issues of this kind.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California,
Senator Feinstein, be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. If there is no further debate, I suggest we now move to a
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 800) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. 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.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
Under the previous order, my understanding is that the Senator from
Wisconsin will be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me also associate myself with the remarks by the
Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Virginia about the
resolution that we just passed regarding Cambodia.
Let me also say just how grateful I am, and I know all Members of
this body are, for the extremely distinguished service of the Senators
in that group in the war in Vietnam.
Let me also associate myself with regard to the situation in
Cambodia. I have placed my own brief statement in the Record with the
hope that we can get back on the road to democracy and progress in
Cambodia. I am honored to have been here to hear their remarks with
regard to that issue.
In that regard, Mr. President, and in regard to a current situation
where American men and women are serving overseas in the Bosnia
situation, I am prepared to offer an amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be
set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 759

(Purpose: To limit the use of funds for deployment of ground forces of
the Armed Forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina after June 30, 1998, or a
date fixed by statute, whichever is later)

Mr. FEINGOLD. I call up my amendment, Mr. President, No. 759, which
is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an
amendment numbered 759.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1075. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR DEPLOYMENT OF
GROUND FORCES IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

(a) Limitation.--Funds appropriated or otherwise made
available for the Department of Defense may not be obligated
for the deployment of any ground elements of the Armed Forces
of the United States in Bosnia and Herzegovina after the
later of--
(1) June 30, 1998; or
(2) a date that is specified for such purpose (pursuant to
a request of the President or otherwise) in a law enacted
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Exceptions.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall not
apply--
(1) to the support of--
(A) members of the Armed Forces of the United States
deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in a number that is
sufficient only to protect United States diplomatic
facilities in that country as of the date of the enactment of
this Act; and
(B) noncombat personnel of the Armed Forces of the United
States deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina only to advise
commanders of forces engaged in North Atlantic. Treaty
Organization peacekeeping operations in that country; or
(2) to restrict the authority of the President under the
Constitution to protect the lives of United States citizens.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to S.
936, the Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1998.
This amendment simply would prohibit the use of funds within the bill
for the deployment of any ground forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina after
June 30, 1998.
As we all know that is the date that the President has said now
United States troops would be out of Bosnia. My amendment would simply
codify this goal. This amendment would allow appropriate exceptions,
however, for Armed Forces personnel deployed in Bosnia to protect
United States diplomatic facilities or noncombat personnel to advise
NATO commanders. It would also not affect the President's
constitutional authority to protect the lives of American citizens.
Mr. President, this is similar to an amendment I introduced in May to
the supplemental appropriations bill. That amendment, which applied
only to the approximately $1.5 billion worth of ``emergency''
appropriations included in that bill, prohibited the use of fiscal year
1997 funds after the date of December 30, 1997. In order to accommodate
the views of several other Members of this body, I did agree to accept
an amendment by the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, that changed
that date to June 30, 1998.
I was pleased that on that occasion the Senate unanimously chose to
accept the modified version of my amendment on that bill. Although it
was eventually dropped in the conference committee, I was pleased that
the conferees included language in their report expressing the concern
of the Congress regarding the Bosnia deployment and requiring the
President to provide regular reports to Congress on the deployment
itself as well as on the cumulative costs stemming from various United
States efforts associated with Bosnia.
So here today, Mr. President, we now have an opportunity again to go
on record regarding the continuation of the Bosnian operation beyond
next June.
I have held strong reservations about United States troop deployment
in Bosnia ever since it was announced in 1995. These doubts were so
strong that I ended up being the only Democrat in the Congress to vote
against deployment of United States men and women to support the Dayton
accord.
It was a hard vote, but I voted no because I felt that the
administration's promises to bring our men and women home after just 1
year were simply not plausible. Now, here we are in July of 1997--
nearly 2 years later--our troops are still in Bosnia, and it is already
clear that at a minimum we will remain there at least until the middle
of 1998.
Mr. President, my concerns about our involvement in Bosnia have not
changed since that first ``no'' vote.
I will be the first to acknowledge, though, that the international
intervention in Bosnia has had some positive benefits. The Dayton
accord and the deployment of the NATO-led implementation force, IFOR,
put an end to

[[Page S7195]]

the bloodshed of the 3-year Bosnian war. In this sense, Mr. President,
the IFOR mission in Bosnia was a success.
There also can be no argument about the bravery and professionalism
of the United States personnel who served in IFOR and are still in
Bosnia as a part of the stabilization force, SFOR. Amazingly, there
have been virtually no casualties even though there have been as many
as 27,700 United States troops in the theater at one time. These men
and women work through harsh conditions in a complex and often unstable
environment. Although there have been passionate debates about whether
our military should stay in Bosnia, admiration for the outstanding
performance of our troops has been unanimous.
Mr. President, my problem is with the seemingly endless duration of
this mission.
When in late 1995, the President first announced he would be sending
United States forces to Europe to participate in the IFOR mission, he
promised the Congress and the American people that the IFOR mission
would be over within 1 year. This promise was reiterated by the
President on several occasions and continually backed up by senior
American military and diplomatic officials in public statements and in
testimony before Congress. I think we all understood that promise. I
think we all understood that promise to mean that our military men and
women would be withdrawn from the region by December 1996, or at least
very shortly thereafter.

But in November 1996 the President announced that he would extend the
U.S. mission for an additional 18 months, through June 1998, for
participation in the NATO force now known as SFOR. Mr. President,
despite this new acronym, SFOR really represents nothing more than an
extension of the original IFOR mandate, albeit somewhat more limited in
scope.
Mr. President, I am afraid that there is still no clear end to our
mission. The main factions in Bosnia are not making progress toward
creating a viable nation that can survive without the presence of the
international force. Although the IFOR and SFOR deployment has
certainly halted the wide-scale fighting, there has been little
progress on the political front. According to a May report by the
General Accounting Office, the united governments Parliamentary
Assembly has met just once and has yet to pass any legislation. The
unified Council of Ministers has no authority, no funding, and no
office space.
So long as SFOR maintains an indefinite commitment to serve as
referee in Bosnia, I don't think we can expect any movement by the
three Bosnian factions to build the institutions that will be needed,
once the NATO force pulls out. So unless we set a deadline for our
involvement to end, Mr. President, I believe there will be little to no
incentive for the three sides to create a lasting political solution to
the conflict.
Mr. President, Bosnia's problems are still immense. Authoritarian
rulers from all sides are hampering democracy. Many refugees are still
unable to turn to their homes, and acts of ethnic violence occur on a
daily basis. In short, Mr. President, there will never be a good time
to pull out of Bosnia. If we stay in Bosnia until the Croats and Serbs
and Bosnians learn to live together, then we may never leave.
At the heart of the conflict is the fact that the strategic political
goals of the warring factions remain unchanged. There are many
observers who believe that the presence of the U.S. troops alone,
instead of helping in some way, actually serves to harden rather than
soften ethnic tensions in the area. The longer the Muslim refugees are
prevented from returning to their homes the more determined they are to
fight for their right to do so. At the same time, the Serbs are
thwarting resettlement efforts and ignoring indictments from the War
Crimes Tribunal against their own leadership. I believe that the open-
endedness of this mission is helping to keep the warring parties from
truly fulfilling their commitments under the Dayton accord.
Mr. President, I have a second concern, as well. It really is the
crux of this amendment. It relates to the bill that the United States
taxpayer is expected to bear to support this Bosnia operation. The
Congress and the American people, Mr. President, were originally told
the Bosnia mission would cost the U.S. taxpayers approximately $2
billion. Sometime in 1996 that estimate was revised to $3 billion.
Then, subsequent to the President's November announcement extending the
deadline for troop withdrawal, we learned that the cost estimate had
been revised upward again, and really revised upward to a staggering
$6.5 billion after the initial figure of $2 billion had been used. Six
months later now, the May 1997 GAO report estimates this mission will
cost $7.7 billion for military and civilian support for fiscal years
1996 through 1998.
Mr. President, this latest figure is nearly four times as great as
the administration's original estimate. To put this in perspective, the
United States, over the course of 30 months in Bosnia, expects to spend
an amount equivalent to over just half of the entire foreign operations
budget for the current fiscal year for the whole world.
Mr. President, as I said during the debate over the supplemental
appropriations bill, what we now have with United States involvement in
the Bosnia operation is not mission creep, it has become dollars creep
for the U.S. Congress and for the American people. At the very time we
are straining so hard to eliminate the Federal deficit, we need to plug
up the ever-enlarging hole in the Treasury through which funds continue
to pour into the Bosnia operation.
Mr. President, by setting a hard date, by prohibiting the use of
funds after June 30, 1998, my amendment establishes an end date for the
deployment of ground troops in Bosnia. This is the only hope we have to
plug this hole in the Treasury.
Mr. President, by establishing an end date for the funding of the
deployment of U.S. troops, my amendment, I hope, serves the dual
purpose of preventing both mission creep and dollars creep in the
Bosnia situation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 802 to Amendment No. 759

(Purpose: To substitute an expression of the sense of Congress
regarding a follow-on force for Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What rights does
the Senator from Virginia, acting for the majority, have with respect
to not having this accepted? I object to this being accepted.
Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Michigan will not be pressing for the
disposition of this amendment tonight, following my conversation with
my friend from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. That does not preclude, subsequent to sending it to the
desk, an objection being interposed by the majority or any other
Senator.
Mr. LEVIN. Anybody could move to table this or vote no on this,
because I am not going to be pressing for disposition of this tonight,
and if there are other amendments to dispose of tonight, we will have
to set aside this second-degree amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Chair kindly respond to the question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will not be disposed of until
all debate has concluded on the amendment this evening.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr.
Reed, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 802 to
Amendment No. 759.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

Strike out the section heading and all that follows and
insert in lieu thereof the following:

SEC. 1075. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING A FOLLOW-ON FORCE FOR
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

It is the sense of Congress that--

[[Page S7196]]

(1) United States ground combat forces should not
participate in a follow-on force in Bosnia and Herzegovina
after June 1998;
(2) the European Security and Defense Identity, which, as
facilitated by the Combined Joint Task Forces concept,
enables the Western European Union, with the consent of the
North Atlantic Alliance, to assume political control and
strategic direction of NATO assets made available by the
Alliance, is an ideal instrument for a follow-on force for
Bosnia and Herzegovina;
(3) if the European Security and Defense Identity is not
sufficiently developed or is otherwise deemed inappropriate
for such a mission, a NATO-led force without the
participation of United States ground combat forces in
Bosnia, may be suitable for a follow-on force for Bosnia and
Herzegovina;
(4) the United States may decide to appropriately provide
support to a Western European Union-led or NATO-led follow-on
force, including command and control, intelligence,
logistics, and, if necessary, a ready reserve force in a
neighboring country; and
(5) the President should inform our European NATO allies of
this expression of the sense of Congress and should strongly
urge them to undertake preparations for a Western European
Union-led or NATO-led force as a follow-on force to the NATO-
led Stabilization Force if needed to maintain peace and
stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin has offered an
amendment, which has as its purpose sending a very clear sign to our
friends in Europe, our allies, to the administration, and to the people
of America that it is our intention that our forces be out of Bosnia by
the middle of next year. And I happen to share that goal. I think it is
important that if we are going to be credible militarily, that when we
have a mission and we set an end point for that mission, as we have,
and particularly where the military side of that mission has now been
accomplished--the military side--that for our military to be credible,
we should live up to the mission's shape, the mission's description.
Now, part of this mission--and it was stated when these troops were
sent in--was that they would complete their mission by the middle of
next year, and they were given certain other tasks and, militarily,
those tasks have been assigned. The civilian side of the Dayton accords
have not been fulfilled, surely. And it is my clear belief that the
civilian side of the Dayton accords are not going to be completed by
the middle of next year. There are going to be many years before those
civilian goals in Dayton can be achieved.
It is my own personal belief that there is going to need to be a
follow-on force in Bosnia if the gains which have been made are not
going to be lost. There have been some significant gains. I also
believe that the Europeans should take a greater responsibility for
that follow-on force, and they should know now that it is the intention
of the Congress that a follow-on force, which is likely to be
necessary, or may be necessary, is going to be one that will not have
American ground combat troops.
That is goal 1 of this second-degree amendment. It is to state the
sense of the Congress that American forces leave Bosnia by the middle
of next year, as planned, as scheduled, as part of the mission.
But there is another part to the second-degree amendment. That part
is a reference to the Europeans, as providing a follow-on force, if
necessary, through something called the European Security and Defense
Initiative, which is an initiative inside of NATO, using NATO's assets,
which has been approved by NATO, but which is connected to the western
European Union. It is an effort to get greater European initiative in
European affairs. It is a way of saying we will support the Europeans
in taking that initiative through the use of NATO assets, but without
having Americans in the lead everywhere that NATO operates.
It is something the Europeans have said they want many, many times.
It is their initiative inside NATO. It has been approved by NATO. NATO,
in January 1994, gave its full support to the development of a European
Security and Defense Initiative to strengthen the European pillar of
the alliance, and in order to allow our European allies to take greater
responsibility for the common security in their common defense. It was
designed to enable, as I said, the western European Union to carry out
operations using NATO assets and capabilities. That is the other part
of this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
So I want to commend the Senator from Wisconsin, and many others in
this body, who want to keep us to the mission statement, the mission
goal, part of which is that our troops would be removed by the middle
of next year. Again, I emphasize the military part of the Dayton
accords have been completed. Our military has done a spectacular job.
We should be supporting our military, and we are. This second-degree
amendment avoids the excessive statement that is made when one says
there is going to be a cutoff in funding, but at the same time sends a
strong message that it is Congress' intent that there not be United
States forces on the ground in Bosnia after next year. It gives a
little greater flexibility.
A funding cutoff, under these circumstances, when our military is
there now, successfully, is too blunt an instrument. It is just too
inflexible an instrument. It will take away bargaining power that
currently exists both with our allies and with some of the negative
regressive forces inside of Bosnia. We are going to have plenty of time
to act to cut off funds, should that be necessary and should the
circumstances dictate. But we should not commit ourselves a year in
advance to cutting off funds when there is sufficient time at a later
time to do so.
So this second-degree amendment sends a strong message, which is the
intent of the Senator from Wisconsin--an intent that I happen to
share--but it does so without either undermining the morale of our
troops, or without harming our chances for further progress in Bosnia.
So, Mr. President, I basically have reached a number of conclusions
that are reflected in this amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator
Reed of Rhode Island and Senator McCain of Arizona. These are the
conclusions that I believe are accurate, based on a lot of personal
visits to Bosnia and a lot of study.
One, there is an absence of war in Bosnia, and that situation is
likely to remain as long as there is an outside armed force in Bosnia.

Two, the civilian implementation of the Dayton accords is lagging far
behind military implementation.
Three, central governing institutions are developing in Bosnia, but
there is a long way to go. The Bosnian Serbs have not yet decided even
that it is in their best interest to cooperate.
Four, reconciliation among the Bosnian factions has barely begun.
Fifth, the central role played by the United States has reinvigorated
the NATO alliance and re-established America's leadership.
Six, the United States should continue its leadership role and remain
involved in Bosnia.
Seven, our European NATO allies have sought to become less reliant on
the United States, and mechanisms including the European security and
defense initiative are being developed to allow them to play a larger
role.
Next, either a Western European-led force, with its core made up of
the forces of our European NATO alliance, or a NATO-led force, without
a U.S. ground combat presence, should be ready to provide a follow-on
force if an armed outside force is necessary to keep the peace in
Bosnia after S. 4 completes its mission in June of 1998.
Mr. President, that is the thrust of this amendment. It is aimed at
making a strong statement in terms of congressional intent, but it is
also aimed at avoiding too blunt or too inflexible an instrument a year
in advance of when the American troops should be removed from Bosnia.

Amendment No. 802, As Modified

Mr. President, I send a technical modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify the
amendment. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 802), as modified, is as follows:

Strike all after ``Sec.'' and insert in lieu thereof the
following:

SEC. 1075. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING A FOLLOW-ON FORCE FOR
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) United States ground combat forces should not
participate in a follow-on force in Bosnia and Herzegovina
after June 1998;
(2) the European Security and Defense Identity, which, as
facilitated by the Combined Joint Task Forces concept,
enables the Western European Union, with the consent of the
North Atlantic Alliance, to assume political control and
strategic direction of

[[Page S7197]]

NATO assets made available by the Alliance, is an ideal
instrument for a follow-on force for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
(3) if the European Security and Defense Identity is not
sufficiently developed or is otherwise deemed inappropriate
for such a mission, a NATO-led force without the
participation of United States ground combat forces in
Bosnia, may be suitable for a follow-on force for Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
(4) the United States may decide to appropriately provide
support to a Western European Union-led or NATO-led follow-on
force, including command and control, intelligence,
logistics, and, if necessary, a ready reserve force in a
neighboring country; and
(5) the President should inform our European NATO allies of
this expression of the sense of Congress and should strongly
urge them to undertake preparations for a Western European
Union-led or NATO-led force as a follow-on force to the NATO-
led Stabilization Force if needed to maintain peace and
stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I find myself in something of an awkward
position. I will address it in greater detail momentarily because I
have been opposed to the utilization of our ground troops in this
region of the world, namely Bosnia, for many years. I have so spoken
and I have voted that way. Only once was I faced with a vote that had I
not supported it would have been construed as not supporting the
troops, did I cast a vote which could be construed, in any way, as
supporting the use of ground forces in this region. But at this time I
am acting on behalf of the distinguished majority leader and the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and in that capacity I send
to the desk an amendment in the second degree in the nature of a
perfecting amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan sent an amendment to
the desk which was a modifying amendment, and it became a perfecting
amendment. Consequently another second-degree perfecting amendment is
not in order at this time.
Mr. WARNER. Very well, Mr. President. We will see what we can do to
untangle this situation in the morning.
So, for the moment I will just speak to the amendment offered by the
distinguished Senator from Wisconsin and the second-degree amendment of
my good friend and colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the
Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Michigan.
My concern is as follows. It is twofold.
One, there is a long history of the President exercising his role as
Commander in Chief and the Congress exercising its role primarily
through the power of the purse. And for the 18 years I have been
privileged to serve in this body I have participated in many, many
debates on this issue. Now we are confronted with the fact that the
American taxpayers have invested up to $7 billion, I am told, in this
conflict in this very troubled part of the world, a part of the world
in which historically troubles have existed from almost the beginning
of mankind. I have always been of the opinion that it can never be
settled. I have made many trips to this region. As a matter of fact, I
was the first Member of the U.S. Senate to go into Sarajevo--my
recollection is about 3\1/2\ years ago. I have been back on a number of
trips with other colleagues. And the underlying problem of these people
in terms of their ethnic conflicts and religious conflicts is just
beyond me to comprehend. I have seen ravages of this war firsthand both
on people and property. But I am going to put that to one side for the
moment.
Two things concern me: one, the President has the right as Commander
in Chief to give the orders to the troops to go in, and really we
authorize as the Congress to give him every right to decide when those
troops are to be withdrawn. I fully recognize that in this debate.
Particularly over the last 6 or 7 months there have been many signals
from the administration that this general timeframe of June 1998 is
when the ground elements are to be pulled out.
Indeed, when the Secretaries of State and Defense appeared before the
Senate Armed Services Committee, I think one of the first times, if not
the first time in history, my recollection is that I asked the question
that prompted the answer from Secretary Cohen that he stood firmly
behind the policy to pull the ground elements out in June of 1998.
It has been interesting to observe since that time the posturing,
particularly by the Secretary of State, and to some degree by the
President, in my judgment, trying to distance themselves from that
statement by our former colleague, and, indeed, my good friend of many
years, the current Secretary of Defense.
I anticipate that the President and his Cabinet officials and others
will soon come to the Congress to try and explore the common ground in
which we can recognize that the President under his constitutional
powers should be given the maximum latitude in deciding when to bring
troops, whether it is ground, air, or otherwise, out of the situation
into which they have been deployed.

I footnote my remarks again by saying I voted against it. I was
opposed to it. I do not think today, or yesterday, or, indeed, I don't
think I will ever be convinced that this part of the world is in the
vital national security interests of the United States. But
nevertheless the President has the power under the Constitution as to
when to deploy. I think that power also is the power to determine when
to extract. And I am one that wants to give the maximum latitude to any
President to exercise rightfully his constitutional powers.
I also recognize that we have, as I said, invested upwards of $7
billion.
I want to ask my good friend when he returns here momentarily, could
not such a statement as we are debating tonight--although it is the
sense of the Senate, sometimes those communications as they cross the
ocean are misinterpreted or not fully understood. And how can we have
asked the American taxpayers, even though I and others voted against,
to have contributed this extraordinary sum of money? And, indeed, this
sum of money has been taken from the procurement accounts, from the
readiness account, and the R&D accounts. It has literally starved the
defense budget. And those effects are being felt today.
Nevertheless, how can we jeopardize that investment with stating that
no matter what happens--this says, ``United States ground forces should
not participate in a follow-on force in Bosnia and Herzegovina after
June 1998.'' It doesn't really have any contingencies. Just today we
learned that elements of the NATO forces went in to try to capture war
criminals. I have great concern--perhaps next week after I receive a
briefing, and hopefully so will other Senators--on exactly what was the
change of policy. What was intended to be done? Here we are, Mr.
President. We are looking at a rapidly changing situation. If we are
going to allow the NATO forces to go out after some 50 war criminals--
these were low-level in terms of the hierarchy--I think in a geographic
location where certainly it is less troublesome to have a military
operation get them than many of the others, the principal ones.
But my point is this is a changing situation. And to say that June
1998 all ground forces must be withdrawn, in my judgment, is unwise
from a constitutional standpoint. And I question whether or not we have
acted in good faith with the American people to say now we are going to
put that arbitrary limitation on our President.
Then I ask of my colleagues--and I hope that they take the floor and
perhaps ponder my questions. And I will direct them in a moment. Our
allies have said, ``You pull out, we are pulling out the next day. You
pull out, we will pull out.'' So this is going to trigger a precipitous
withdrawal of those forces which have basically secured this situation.
So that there has been a situation of comparative peace now for some
considerable time.
So I would like to ask first of my distinguished colleague from
Michigan, what is likely to be the allied reaction to a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution by the Congress of the United States that we think
these troops--no matter what the situation--that maybe our ground
forces should be withdrawn no later than June of 1998?
Mr. LEVIN. I think they would see it in two ways.
First, I think they would see that we are supporting the
administration which has stated its position that our troops would be
out of there. The administration position is that our troops will be
out by the middle of next year. So I think they would see the Senate as
going on record as supporting that position of the administration.

[[Page S7198]]

So they would see some unity in that respect.
But they also, I think, would see in this second-degree resolution
something which is very important. This amendment says that the
Europeans and we in NATO talked about greater European initiative. We
have now put one in place, and it is being implemented as we speak.
I checked with General Shalikashvili and I have checked with our
leadership in Europe. This European security and defense initiative in
NATO adopted by NATO with our support to give the Europeans--not only
give them assets to carry out greater European initiatives but to
encourage European initiatives. And this is what this amendment also
does. It says we support the administration's position that these
troops be out. We are going to let you know a year in advance. We are
not going to have the funds cut off. It is too inflexible. It is too
rigid. That is not part of this sense-of-the-Congress resolution. They
will see that as avoiding that kind of inflexibility and rigidity
because a lot of things can change possibly.
On the other hand, it is important that we send that signal that we
let the Europeans know that that is our plan, and that is our
intention, and that is the administration policy.
I have visited a number of European capitals, and I have heard the
same things which my good friend from Virginia has heard about a number
of Europeans saying, ``We are pulling out if you pull out.'' But I have
also heard European leadership say maybe there is a way--maybe there is
a way that, if the United States plays a more supporting role but not
necessarily troops there on the ground, but a more supporting role in
some other form that maybe, maybe, it is possible that a follow-on
force made up of European forces can stay there. Just the way the
British today took that initiative with our help, and at some risk, as
we know. There were some casualties.

So a follow-on force could show that kind of greater European
initiative with our support, but without our ground forces being on the
ground.
So I think there are a couple of messages that are involved in the
second-degree amendment. And it has the kind of balance which I know my
good friend from Virginia is struggling to do which is not to pull the
rug out from under, not to have an absolute funding cutoff, but, on the
other hand, expressing some clear message that the policy under current
plans of having our troops leave in the middle of next year as
scheduled is something that we intend at this time to happen.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I value the views of my good friend. We
have served together side by side for the 18 years that we have been
here together. We made many trips together. As a matter of fact, Mr.
President, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee entrusted us
with doing the official report for the committee as it related to
Somalia.
The Senator spoke of the NATO forces today who tried to apprehend--I
think in one instance did apprehend one, and a second alleged criminal
was killed. I am all in favor of somehow capturing these criminals. But
I want to visit it another day at another time about how that is to be
done. Because I, drawing on the lessons of Somalia, which the Senator
and I experienced and wrote about in some detail, I am very concerned
when the United States in this type of situation is involved in nation
building and going into situations like this; but another day; another
time.
But I come back to the Senator's statement about the Dayton accords.
That was a historic achievement. It really was. As a matter of fact, I
was pleased to see the Armed Services Committee and the Senate back the
rapid promotion of one of our members, General Clark, to the position
of NATO Commander. He was deputy to Ambassador Holbrooke throughout
that period. And true, that framework, no matter how we valued it, is
not being accepted today by the parties and really enforced in the
manner we had anticipated, and certainly not on the timetable.
If we send a message that we are going home June of 1998, what does
that do to induce them to finish it? I think it could be just the
reverse. Those opposed to following through on the accords will dig in
and will say, ``Wait them out. Wait them out. Let them go, and then we
can take this situation perhaps into our own hands.'' Who would come
into the vacuum? What nations, what troops, what forces could come into
that vacuum at that time?
It seems to me that it is not right in the first place to go in there
with these ground forces. But that is history. Now the American
taxpayers and our brave servicepersons have gone over there and have
taken a great deal of personal risk. And they have made the Dayton
accords as it relates to the security policy work.
To jeopardize that whole thing, put it up for failure, it just to me
is a very risky and unwise course of action. As I look through the
amendment, which I forwarded, and now regrettably the tree is
completed, I hope tomorrow morning in the dawn of a new day we can work
it out so those on our side who hold views possibly which are parallel
in many respects to the distinguished Senator from Michigan and the
Senator from Wisconsin can sit down and work out a common position
which can be reviewed by the Senate and voted on by the Senate. In all
likelihood, this Senator would vote against it, but that is not a
controlling fact.
But I would be interested in the Senator's view on the Dayton
accords. The Senator said that they were not being fulfilled. How does
this policy, in the Senator's judgment, prompt a greater degree of
compliance?
Mr. LEVIN. The amendment which I have introduced along with Senator
Reed and Senator McCain states that it is likely there is going to be a
need for a follow-on force for the very reasons the Senator from
Virginia states. The Dayton accords civilian goals have not been
achieved, and I do not see any prospect that they will be achieved by
the middle of next year. I do not see any realistic prospect that we
are going to see a million plus refugees resettled, war criminals
captured, all the new arrangements, civilian arrangements that have
been magnificently provided for in the Dayton accords achieved by the
middle of next year.
I just do not see that happening. But I do not want to see an open-
ended commitment of American troops. I think we undermine the
credibility of the use of military force when we set a date, as we
have; set military missions, which we have; see those missions
achieved, which they have been, the military mission achieved, which
they have been, and still leave our military there. That turns them
into a police force for which I do not think they should be used. I
think for the credibility of military forces, if you have a mission, if
it is clear, achieve it and leave.
Well, we had a clear mission militarily. It has been achieved. We
have a date for departure, and I think under current circumstances we
ought to say it is our intention that we are going to depart as
planned. But to have a funding cutoff, it seems to me, goes too far. It
is too rigid, too inflexible, too far in advance.
How do you balance those goals? How do we send a signal to the
Europeans that, look, we probably are going to need a follow-on force
on the civilian side and you folks have indicated your willingness to
take greater initiative in your own backyard. We are willing to help.
But we also have a mission which has been accomplished there
militarily. We are militarily spread all over this world. We have to
have some kind of end points to military missions which have succeeded,
and that is the balance which is set forth in this second-degree
amendment--to end the open-ended commitment and to, I think, make
credible the use of military force by setting a clear mission, seeing
it achieved and then departing as scheduled.
So it is somewhat different from the good Senator from Wisconsin, but
I have to tell you that the direction he is moving in, sending some
kind of a signal a year in advance, I think is very helpful, providing
it is accompanied with this awareness of the likelihood of the need for
a follow-on force and our willingness to be supportive of it while we
are not with combat forces there on the ground. That is the balance in
this second-degree amendment, avoiding some of the concerns, I think,
or meeting some of the concerns at least, that the Senator from
Virginia has discussed about not wanting to pull the

[[Page S7199]]

rug out from under in an inflexible, rigid way but nonetheless saying
to our European friends: Folks, it is time for you to take some greater
initiative. We will be there to help, but it is time for you to show
some leadership as well.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could address another point here. Let
us look at section (4):

The United States may decide to appropriately provide
support to a Western European Union-led or NATO-led follow-on
force including command, control, intelligence, logistics,
and, if necessary, a ready reserve force in a neighboring
country.

Is that ready reserve force ground troops? I think it is.
Mr. LEVIN. It could be.
Mr. WARNER. What do we gain by simply picking them up out of their
present positions and moving them 50 miles across the border or
whatever the distance may be? What do we gain? It is pure symbolism.
And then they rush back at a telephone call?
Mr. LEVIN. There are two things that are gained. First of all--this
suggestion, by the way, is General Shalikashvili's. I put a lot of
stock in the kind of suggestions he makes. It can very well be a
smaller force, and it is less of a target. American troops, as I think
the Senator from Virginia would acknowledge, have been the target of
choice too often. Not having American troops there as targets, it seems
to me, would be a plus. Having a smaller number nearby makes them less
of a target and, on the other hand, does provide some deterrence as
well as accomplish some significant cost savings. So there are both
cost savings involved as well as reducing the risks and the threat to
American forces.

Mr. WARNER. Well, Mr. President, the Senator says they are a target,
and I share that with the Senator, and I am concerned now as a
consequence of this mission to capture the war criminals that there is
probably going to be a heightened alert and a heightened degree of
risk.
So the Senator seems to think that if they are moved some distance
across a border into another country--I do not doubt that there would
be diminished personal risk to those troops. What does that say to the
troops that are left back there from other European nations? The United
States has withdrawn to a safe haven, yet we are left out here to take
the risk.
I somehow find this all incongruous. I really do, Mr. President. If
we are a part of NATO, we are going to pull our share, and that is
financially, it is in terms of risk, it is in every other way. That is
the way NATO was set up. We are proud to be the leader of NATO. We have
as the senior officer, an American officer as the commanding general of
NATO forces, and yet you are going to say we will now have a policy
when there is a risk, our people are going to a safe haven some
distance away in another land and let the chaps and ladies or whatever
the composition of that force may be stay in harm's way in Bosnia. I
find this all very difficult.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield just on that point.
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. NATO has adopted a policy where the Europeans will take
greater initiative without American presence. It is called the European
Security and Defense Initiative. It was adopted in January of 1994. It
is a NATO policy.
So, yes, we are a big part of NATO, and we do more than our fair
share. I know the Senator would agree with that. We do more than carry
our load, and we have more than enough of our personnel around the
world at risk. It is time that the Europeans in their own neighborhood
take on a greater share of the risk. This is a way of achieving that
balance. But it is a NATO initiative. This European Security and
Defense Initiative is a NATO initiative, approved by NATO. That is what
is referred to in the second-degree amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Well, Mr. President, if there are others who wish to
speak, I will be happy to yield the floor. But I want to return--I am
familiar with the European Security Defense Initiative, and I am not so
sure that I am here tonight prepared to go into all the ramifications.
But we are the leader of NATO, and I think if there is going to be a
pattern where we do not get involved and share the risk, I question how
long we can retain that leadership role.
I seem to be in opposition to a number of things. I am not in favor
of the expansion of NATO. It seems to me that the actions taken in
Madrid are not in the best interests in the long term of NATO.
I have gone back and read the debates. Remember 10, 12, 14 years ago
when there were tremendous debates in the Chamber of the Senate: Bring
them home--debates before we arrived led by the very able majority
leader, the Democratic leader of the Senate, the distinguished Mike
Mansfield of Montana--bring them home; NATO has finished its mission.
There may be a degree to which our tinkering with NATO and changing
it in concept could begin to undermine American public support, and I
think that would be a terrible loss--NATO, the greatest alliance in the
history of mankind, the most effective, the alliance that fulfilled its
goals, exceeding every expectation of those who laid down the original
charter. Indeed, NATO should be credited, rightfully, for such
victories as we attained during the cold war period for the demise of
the Soviet Union. NATO was instrumental. We will debate that another
day. I see other Senators wishing to speak, so for the moment I will
yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. I rise to support the second-degree
amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan on my behalf and on
behalf of Senator McCain.
I, too, compliment the Senator from Wisconsin for his amendment. One
of the great frustrations in watching this policy evolve concerning
Bosnia is that I fear we are wasting precious time in taking concrete
steps so that we can effectively depart that country in June of 1998.
The Senator's amendment has focused this debate and, I hope, gives
further impetus to efforts by the administration to take these steps so
that the withdrawal of our troops in June of 1998 will be a reality and
not a situation where we are victims of a fait accompli and must stay
longer.
Like my colleague from Michigan, I share the Senator's goal. I
believe that we should withdraw our troops by June of 1998. As the
Senator from Wisconsin said, there are no good times to leave. In a
tumultuous situation like Bosnia, with ethnic rivalries, with violence,
with a history of centuries of violence, there are no good times to
leave, but we must leave because, as my colleague from Virginia has
pointed out, we have already spent $7 billion, and after June 30, 1998,
the cost does not go to zero. The costs continue to accumulate. These
costs are not just in terms of appropriations for our military forces.
They are also in terms of the stress and strain placed on our military
forces. There is discussion about mission creep, but I think the first
symptom emerging from Bosnia is mission exhaustion as our troops will
be forced to be rotated back to that country from their positions in
Germany and outside of Bosnia.

So for all of these reasons and more, I believe that we should have
the requirement to return our troops to their home stations by June of
1998. I just believe that the Feingold amendment is the wrong approach
to this situation. It would impose severe conditions on this announced
departure date by cutting off funding for the deployment of any ground
elements of the Armed Forces except guards at our diplomatic facilities
and noncombatant advisers to NATO forces, and this arbitrary
restriction could play havoc with our mission and with our troops'
ability to carry out that mission.
As one consequence, if this provision would pass, it could
immediately begin to demoralize our troops. Even though we have set as
our objective our departure by June of 1998, passage of this bill
cutting off funds would, I think, send a signal that we are not only
requesting them to leave but in some respects abandoning them in their
operations. I think that is the wrong signal.
I know, as the Senator from Wisconsin pointed out, that he, too,
shares with me the esteem that we have for the performance of these
remarkable soldiers in this operation.
Second, I believe that this amendment would weaken the resolve of our
NATO colleagues to participate in this mission. I know it has been said
on this floor this evening that the Europeans

[[Page S7200]]

have declared, if you go, we will go. But if we pass this amendment
today, any possibility of constructive dialog and engagement to
encourage them to stay beyond June will, I think, be totally lost, and
that would be a severe gesture.
I believe we have to keep this active dialog alive with our European
colleagues, and with this amendment tonight, the Feingold amendment, we
could very well cut off such dialog. In addition, the Feingold
amendment contemplates leaving in place a few Embassy guards and some
advisers to NATO. First, if we do construct a follow-on force and if
that force is not NATO, this legislation could technically preclude any
assistance to a follow-on force, and in that respect I think we are
doing ourselves a great disservice, hampering the flexibility of the
administration to construct a follow-on force, a constructive military
posture in Bosnia after June of 1998.
Furthermore, I believe there is a possibility that those forces left
behind, Embassy guards or noncombatant advisers, would be placed in a
very frustrating position.
We are going through a situation where we have significant combat
power in-country, with robust rules of engagement, suddenly to a
position where American troops are merely, in a way, passive bodyguards
for our own military personnel. Their safety could be jeopardized. And,
in addition, they would be in the frustrating position of perhaps
standing by helplessly when civilians, which we previously protected,
could fall victim to the ethnic rivalries which we know exist in that
country.
I think also one of the detriments and deficiencies in the amendment
is it obscures what I think should be the focus of the debate today. We
all agree June of 1998 is the appropriate departure date. What we
should be debating today on this floor is what steps we must take
beginning today to ensure that we can safely and appropriately withdraw
our troops by June of 1998. I believe there are several steps that must
be taken.
Like my colleague from Michigan, I believe we should constitute a
follow-on force, but a follow-on force that is not composed of American
ground troops. As the Senator from Michigan pointed out, we have the
capability through NATO, or through the European security defense
identity which would use NATO assets, to provide this follow-on force.
Indeed, I think we have to remind Europeans of their brave words back
in 1992 in Lisbon when the leaders of the European nations declared
that assisting the people of former Yugoslavia in their quest for peace
was a test of their ability to establish and maintain peace and
security on the Continent of Europe. It is not inappropriate--in fact,
I think it is most appropriate--that this situation be returned
primarily to the European forces after the intervention of NATO
successfully to suppress violence and give them a second chance, give
them a second chance to maintain the peace and stability in that
region.
As we all know, for many years it was a primarily European-led United
Nations force, United Nations-protected force that operated within
Bosnia. That force was inadequate, but I believe with the intervention
of NATO, with the steps we have already taken, a European force could,
in fact, and should, in fact, carry out this follow-on mission. I also
believe that to augment the European force within the former
Yugoslavia, we should, in fact, create a residual force in a nearby
country or in the Adriatic, which could respond in a crisis to the
legitimate requirements for assistance for this force.
In doing those two things, I believe we would, in fact, create a
follow-on capability that would preserve the gains we have made in the
former Yugoslavia. I believe it is also very important that our
administration speak with a very clear voice and a single voice about
our intention to depart in June of 1998. It is frustrating when the
Secretary of Defense clearly states that deadline, but his words are
sometimes confused by ambiguous statements from other leaders of our
National Government. I believe we should have one voice, and that one
voice should declare that we are leaving in June of 1998.
While we go about our military preparations to depart, we have to
address the concerns of economic development, and we can do that in a
way which favors those parties within the former Yugoslavia, within
Bosnia, who are trying to assist in an evolution to a democratic,
peaceful society. If we do these things--reconstitute a follow-on
force, provide for a residual American force outside of the country
that can assist the follow-on force, and begin to support the economic
and political development of the people of Bosnia--then I believe that
when June of 1998 arrives we can and will successfully remove our
forces. But the challenge we face today is not to arbitrarily cut off
and terminate funding at this juncture. The challenge we face is to use
the intervening months that we have to fashion a policy which will
allow us to leave peacefully from the former Yugoslavia, and leave it
in a condition where there is hope that the gains we made will be
sustained and will be permanent within that country.
As a result, I urge my colleagues to support the second-degree
amendment and, in doing so, not only send a signal that we are serious
about our departure, a signal that will be sent to the capitals of
Europe and to the capitals of the former Yugoslavia that we will be
serious about our departure date, but we will not be arbitrary and
inflexible. And that, in the interim, we will build a structure of
peace and security that will carry on the efforts that were so
magnificently undertaken and continue today by our military forces in
the former Yugoslavia.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for
his commitment to this issue and his leadership in this debate and very
clear explanation of the situation. I will not oppose the second-degree
amendment that he and the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator
from Arizona have proposed. I also wish to compliment the Senator from
Rhode Island on his comments, which I think were very appropriate with
regard, especially, to the issue of making it absolutely clear
throughout all aspects of our Government that it really is
our intention to be out of this situation in terms of our ground troops
by the end of June 1998.

As Senator Levin has described, his second-degree amendment expresses
the sense of the Congress that United States ground troops should not
participate in a follow-on force in Bosnia and Herzegovina after June
of 1998. Of course, I heartily agree with that premise. I believe we
have to have a firm end date to our mission in Bosnia. Without it, many
of us have said it here on the floor tonight, the mission absolutely
risks continuing for who knows how long. There simply is no sign or
clue as to when our involvement would end.
Of course, I would have preferred my own hard mandate in my own
amendment, which would have cut the purse strings of the Bosnia mission
after June 30, 1998. This would have absolutely ensured that United
States ground troops would be out of Bosnia by that date. But I am
willing to not oppose the change offered by the Senator from Michigan
because not only is there more support for the amendment in this form,
but because it, again, puts the U.S. Senate on record with respect to
its concern about the Bosnia mission.
I am particularly pleased that the Levin amendment includes language
urging the President to inform our European allies of this expression
of the sense of Congress. This may well be the most important point. It
is pretty clear that our allies in the region, our NATO partners, have
become dependent on the active participation of the United States in
this peacekeeping operation. If I were them, I would not want to do it
alone either. But it is my view that if President Clinton lets our
allies know immediately and with all candor that U.S. troops will not
participate in the mission after next June, then they will begin to
think creatively about what our next steps should be in the region.
If the President does not send that message, then our allies and
partners will have every reason to believe that the United States will,
of course, remain in Bosnia after that date, as we have done already
with regard to a number of other deadlines. Why do I say that? Because
the last time we had

[[Page S7201]]

a deadline for completing the peacekeeping mission, the December 1996
end date for IFOR, the administration was only too quick to let it slip
with just a few months left to go on our initial 1-year commitment, the
mission got rebaptized as SFOR, and U.S. ground troops were stuck there
for what is going to be at least an additional 18 months.
I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed by people like
Secretary Albright, Chairman Shalikashvili and Secretary Cohen. In her
June 27, 1997 letter to the Senate leadership, Secretary Albright wrote
that if legislation mandating a cutoff were to pass, it would ``send
exactly the wrong signal to our allies, to the signatories to the
Dayton Accords, and to the American people about what American
leadership in the world should mean.''
Mr. President, I don't understand this statement. I don't understand
this statement in light of the fact that the United States is already
on record for wanting to end the military mission on June 30, 1998. How
can people be so concerned about the statement sending a signal about
that date when that is exactly the signal that the President of the
United States has sent?
By telling our European allies about the planned withdrawal date, as
the Levin second-degree specifically calls upon the President to do, we
can make it clear that our leadership role is there but that our
leadership role has limits. In the event of a follow-on force in the
region, the Levin amendment suggests that the United States may decide
to provide support in the form of command and control, intelligence,
logistics and, if necessary, a ready reserve force. I believe this kind
of support is more appropriate than the deployment of our men and women
to Bosnia.
I am also aware that the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from
Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, had made an agreement during the Armed Services
Committee markup of the bill to resist the temptation to offer Bosnia
language in this bill. The issue of when and where we deploy our troops
is a tough, emotional and controversial one for all of us. Because of
that, I know that the members of the Armed Services Committee would all
like to see a longer, more thoughtful debate on Bosnia at some point.
I, too, would like the Congress to have the opportunity to engage in
a more extensive debate on the issue. But I also believe, as we
consider this legislation, we cannot ignore the Bosnia issue in the
very bill that authorizes the activities of the Defense Department. So,
in light of the initial hesitation of the Armed Services Committee, I
am particularly pleased that Senator Levin and I have been able to work
together on this issue. I think it is vitally important that in a bill
as important as this one, the Senate go on record regarding our mission
in Bosnia.
Let me just conclude by saying if, in fact, we are able to pass my
amendment, as amended by the Levin amendment, it will mean that both
the House and the Senate will be on record on this DOD bill calling for
termination of the Bosnia mission no later than June 1998. This should
guarantee that this issue will not simply disappear in conference.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today in strong
support of the FY98 Defense Authorization bill reported by the Armed
Services Committee. This is an excellent piece of legislation, and I
want to commend the distinguished Chairman of the Committee, Senator
Thurmond, for his tireless efforts to formulate a balanced,
constructive defense bill.
Mr. President, the bill before us would add $2.6 billion to the
President's budget request for national defense. While I strongly
support this increase, I want to emphasize that it will not address all
of the deficiencies resulting from the Administration's underfunded
defense program. In fact, even with this increase, defense spending in
FY98 will be $3.3 billion below this year in real terms. However, in
the current budget environment, this $2.6 billion increase was all that
we were able to achieve.
As we did last year, the Armed Services Committee spent a good deal
of time evaluating our national security requirements and establishing
a set of firm priorities to guide our consideration of defense programs
for FY98. These priorities included, among other things: ensuring
national security and the status of the United States as the preeminent
military power; protecting the readiness of our Armed Forces; enhancing
the quality of life of military personnel and their families; ensuring
U.S. military superiority by continuing to fund a more robust,
progressive modernization program for the future; accelerating the
development and deployment of missile defense systems; and preserving
the shipbuilding and submarine industrial bases.
Mr. President, as I said, the Armed Services Committee established
these priorities to guide our investment strategy in the FY98
authorization bill. I am pleased to report that the bill before us
embodies these priorities and corrects a number of serious deficiencies
contained in the Administration budget request.
For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to highlight some of
the important measures contained in this bill.
The authorization bill reported by the Armed Services Committee:
provides a 2.8 percent pay raise for military personnel; increases by
$41.5 million spending on research and development for
counterproliferation, chemical and biological defense, and counter-
terrorism programs; increases readiness funding by more than $1 billion
in areas such as ammunition procurement, flying hours, force
protection, cold weather gear, barracks renovation, and depot
maintenance; adds $653 million for reserve force modernization
programs; adds $720 million for an additional Arleigh Burke class
destroyer; approves the Navy's proposed teaming arrangement for design
and production of the New Attack Submarine; authorizes $345 million to
accelerate the advance procurement and construction of the next nuclear
aircraft carrier; and adds $90 million to procure an additional V-22
aircraft in FY98.
Mr. President, as Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I
also want to take this opportunity to outline for my colleagues some of
the important initiatives dealing with missile defense, nuclear forces,
and Department of Energy programs.
As my colleagues know, Secretary Cohen conducted an extensive
analysis of all defense programs, including missile defense, as part of
the Quadrennial Defense Review. This analysis confirmed what many of us
have long argued--that the Administration's National Missile Defense
program is grossly underfunded. In fact, Secretary Cohen determined
that the NMD program was underfunded by some $2.3 billion over the
future years defense plan, and by a total of $474 million in FY98
alone.

This shortfall of $474 million for National Missile Defense in FY98
proved to be a very big challenge for the Committee to address in its
deliberations. And I would be remiss if I did not say to my colleagues
that it caused us to have to make some very difficult decisions as we
weighed the merits and affordability of many requested programs.
However, I believe that we formulated a very responsible and forward
looking package of initiatives in the Strategic Subcommittee. These
initiatives include: increasing funding for the Navy Upper Tier program
by $80 million; adding $15 million for the Arrow interoperability
program; providing an increase of $118 million for the space based
laser program; adding $50 million for the Clementine 2 micro-satellite
program; authorizing $80 million for the kinetic energy anti-satellite
program; increasing funding for cruise missile defense programs by $32
million; prohibiting the retirement of certain strategic nuclear
delivery systems in FY98 unless the START 2 Treaty enters force;
providing $4 billion for weapons activities to maintain the reliability
and safety of the enduring nuclear arsenal; and including $5.1 billion
for defense environmental restoration and waste management activities.
The bill also includes a provision requiring the Director of Central
Intelligence to establish a cadre of experts within the Intelligence
Community to work POW/MIA issues. The President has directed that a
Special National Intelligence Estimate be prepared on the POW/MIA
issue; however, there are no intelligence experts on these issues

[[Page S7202]]

currently remaining in the Intelligence Community. This provision does
not affect POW/MIA policy or relations with Vietnam. It merely provides
the Director of Central Intelligence with total descretion to establish
an Intelligence Cell within the community.
Mr. President, these are but a few of the many important initiatives
included in this bill. In a more general sense, I want to also offer
some observations concerning the current state of our Armed Forces and
the course that President Clinton has charted for defense in his second
term.
As my colleagues know, I have been critical of the Clinton
Administration's penchant for involving our military forces in
unorthodox, non-traditional operations. Without question, these
peacekeeping and humanitarian relief operations are bankrupting the
defense budget and undermining the readiness of America's Armed Forces.
I have also been critical of the so-called Bottom Up Review that was
conducted by the Clinton Administration four years ago to guide its
defense program. Whether they admit it publicly or not, everyone
realizes that this was nothing but a budget driven exercise to tailor
our defense forces and strategy to meet a pre-established defense
spending level.
I had hoped that in its second term, the Clinton Administration would
take a more honest and objective approach to defense programming, and
base our national security policy on the threat rather than on budget
requirements. Unfortunately, it appears this was wishful thinking.
The Quadrennial Defense Review that was recently released falls into
the same trap as the Bottom Up Review. Rather than identifying the
threats confronting our security and formulating the force structure,
end strength and strategy necessary to counter these threats, the QDR
establishes a baseline for defense spending and tailors our defense
program to fit that baseline.
I want to make clear that I do not impugn the motives or patriotism
of those who worked very hard in the Pentagon to formulate the QDR.
They were doing the best they could to balance requirements and
resources. But the truth is that the resources they were provided were
inadequate to fund the requirements. As a result, the QDR fails to
correct the deficiencies of the Bottom Up Review and it fails to
provide a credible, threat based strategy for our defense program.
Mr. President, it is also worth mentioning that the days of the so-
called ``peace dividend'' and the days of Congressional windfalls for
defense are over. In the past 3 years, Congress has added approximately
$20 billion to the requested level for defense. But with the recently
negotiated budget deal, Congress and the Administration are now locked
into agreed-upon defense numbers. There will be no windfall in future
years.
In fact, any spending additions requested by members will have to be
offset with commensurate spending reductions. From here on out, it will
be a zero sum game. I hope my colleagues understand this situation
because it will have a very profound effect on the Committee's ability
to accommodate member interest requests in the future. We have cut
defense to the bone. There is no real growth programmed in the future;
only further reductions. We have made our bed, now we must lie in it.
I want to end with a somber warning for my colleagues. It is very
simple and straightforward. Contingency operations are bankrupting our
defense budget. If we do not reign in the Clinton Administration and
curtail its continuing commitments of U.S. military forces for non-
military and humanitarian purposes, there will be no money to
recapitalize our Armed Forces. There will be no money to purchase DDG-
51's, or F-22's, or F/A-18's, or Joint Strike Fighters, or Comanche
helicopters, or V-22's, or satellites, or ground vehicles.
If we continue to allow our Armed Forces to be used as a ``911''
emergency force for the United Nations, we will lose our combat
readiness, and deplete our investment accounts.
The Bosnia example is a particularly instructive, and particularly
disturbing, example of this trend. When President Clinton first
committed troops to Bosnia, he assured Congress that the scope of the
operation would be limited and the cost of operation would be $1.6
billion. Yet, here we are today, with the price tag of the Bosnia
operation having climbed to $7.3 billion and the Secretary of State
talking about keeping troops in Bosnia beyond the June 1998 deadline,
yet again.
Mr. President, the Administration has asked for two additional rounds
of Base Closures, arguing that these closures will enable us to save a
few billion dollars. Under the most optimistic forecasts these closures
will not even pay for the Bosnia mission. How on Earth can we justify
putting America's communities through yet another two rounds of chaos,
confusion, anxiety and economic disruption in order to pay the tab for
a mission that a majority of them do not support? We have already had
four rounds of base closures in seven years. Where does it end?
Let me be frank. I absolutely oppose additional base closures at this
time. In 1995, President Clinton completely destroyed the credibility
of the Base Closure process by injecting subjective politics into an
otherwise objective process. There was no question what the President's
motivation was--pure electoral politics. But in the quest to gain more
electoral votes, the President disrupted a very fragile consensus. That
consensus, in support of shared sacrifice through and objective,
transparent process, is now gone. And it is President Clinton who bears
responsibility for that.
I would hasten to add, however, that even if we were to ignore the
politicization of the Base Closure process, the arguments in favor of
more closures are specious. It has yet to be demonstrated that we have
saved a single penny on the four previous rounds of closures. In fact,
we continue to spend exorbitant amounts to close, realign, and
remediate bases. While the Department assures us that we will save vast
sums of money one day, that day doesn't seem to be anywhere in the near
future. We are spending a lot more right now to close bases than we are
recouping in operations and maintenance savings.
Unless and until the President can convince Congress and the American
people that politics have been eliminated from the process, and that
previous closures are demonstrably producing savings, I will not
support additional base closures. Undoubtedly, this issue will be
debated further on the floor and conference, and I look forward to
playing an active role in these discussions.
Mr. President, I want to close by again thanking the distinguished
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his outstanding leadership
in formulating this bill. I know there has been a great deal of praise
heaped upon the senior Senator from South Carolina recently in
connection with his record for service in the Senate. It is richly
deserved. He is a man of utmost integrity and a tremendous inspiration
to all of us who aspire to have a lasting impact on this institution. I
am proud to serve with him on the Armed Services Committee, and pleased
to support this legislation.
I thank the Chair, and yield the floor.

U.S. Air Force Reentry Vehicle Applications Program

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the United States Air Force Reentry Vehicle
Applications Program has been providing critical technologies required
for the manufacture of reentry vehicles and components. Of special note
is the meaningful program with both the prime and the sub-tier
suppliers for the Mark 21 reentry vehicle. Funding for this program has
advanced reentry vehicle technologies while sustaining the critical
industrial base required to develop such technologies.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to join my
colleague, Senator Snowe, in recognizing the work that has been ongoing
in the Air Force Reentry Vehicle Applications Program. As is the case
of any technology program, procurement decisions require careful
analysis of life-cycle costs and performance tradeoffs to ensure that
military requirements are met with the funding constraints that face
the Department of Defense.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I fully agree with my colleague, Senator
Smith, and most strongly agree with his view on the Reentry Vehicle
Application Program. Unfortunately, quantitative data to support such
cost and

[[Page S7203]]

performance tradeoffs are not always readily available. This
information is especially important as the Congress considers funding
for this and other programs. I am concerned that sufficient emphasis is
not being placed on this critical program to sustain the technology
base to conduct advance material studies which will sustain key
technical staff, as well as fabrication capabilities and technologies.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I too am concerned that
these technologies be advanced, and suggest that a review of the
technology base of supplier for both the materials and the components,
such as the carbon/carbon nosetips presently used on the Mark 21
reentry vehicle, be conducted.
Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank my colleague from
New Hampshire, Senator Smith; for joining me in discussing this issue.
I urge the conferees for the Fiscal Year 1998 National Defense Bill to
further consider this subject.

Sexual Harassment Accountability

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this body has few greater responsibilities
than maintaining the effectiveness and accountability of our Nation's
Armed Forces. This is one of the reasons that reports of widespread
sexual harassment in our Nation's military deeply concerns us all. With
Department of Defense statistics showing that sexual harassment is
prevalent throughout the Armed Forces--we must do more than pay lip
service to the problem. Mr. President, we must act.
Today, with a full understanding that the time has come for serious
action that is responsible and constructive, a provision that I
authored was added to the 1998 defense authorization bill that will
place us on the road to solving the crisis of sexual harassment. The
legislation attacks the root of the problem--the lack of accountability
when it comes to reporting and investigating incidents of sexual
harassment.
The Department of Defense conducted a survey in 1988 and found that
64 percent of women reported that they had experienced one or more
incidents of sexual harassment in the 12 months preceding the survey.
The Defense Department conducted another study in 1995 and found that
the figure had only improved to 55 percent. I feel very strongly, Mr.
President, that this is not progress. When I look at those statistics,
I am shocked.
On top of this, I have read in DOD statements that many cases of
sexual harassment go unreported. In the 1995 Defense Department survey,
only 24 percent of the victims chose to report their sexual harassment
experiences. Is this the kind of environment to which we should subject
our people? These numbers tell me that women essentially stand a 50-50
chance of being harassed. This cannot and should not be tolerated. Add
to that the fact that over three-fourths of our people do not feel they
can report the harassment that occurs and you have a very negative set
of circumstances. How can you maintain good order and discipline in
such an environment? This situation demands accountability. And it
requires action to erase any perception that sexual harassment is
tolerated in today's Armed Forces. Today, military members do not
believe they can report sexual harassment and have their claims taken
seriously.
During Armed Services Committee markup of the defense authorization
bill, I offered an amendment that requires the unit commander to report
each and every sexual harassment incident to their next senior officer
within 72 hours. Once reported, the unit commander appoints an
investigating officer to investigate the complaint of sexual
harassment. The unit commander has 14 days to report back to their
commander with the results of the investigation. If the unit commander
cannot complete the investigation within 14 days, that commander must
report the interim results, every 14 days, until the investigation has
been completed.
Today when an incident is reported to a unit commander, the commander
is not required to report the incident until a preliminary
investigation recommends disciplinary action. This gives the unit
commander tremendous latitude as to how the case is handled. In most
instances this is a not a problem. But look what we saw at Aberdeen. We
saw a company commander who was a bad apple and no bells or whistles to
alert his superiors that there was a problem. Under the provisions of
the national defense authorization bill each incident is immediately
brought to the attention of a more senior officer. The most distinct
advantage of this provision is that the decibel level of the problem
rises by elevating the matter to the highest echelons of the services.
The provision also requires that the senior officers who receive
these reports of sexual harassment forward all the complaints they
receive and the results of the investigations of those complaints to
their respective Service Secretary by January 31 of each year,
elevating the problem another notch within the military to the authors
of the services' zero tolerance policies where they can be scrutinized.
The Service Secretaries are then required to forward this information
to the Secretary of Defense who in turn must report the information to
Congress.
Mr. President, this provision was unanimously approved by the Armed
Services Committee and will put us on the road to help end sexual
harassment in our military. We owe the men and women who serve our
Nation an environment that includes accountability, good order, and
discipline. But we also owe this to our Nation, which relies on our
military to defend our great country and its interests.

carbonizable rayon fiber

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to bring my colleagues'
attention to an issue affecting American jobs and national security
issues. The Department of Defense uses approximately 500,000 pounds of
carbonizable rayon fiber per year in its many missile programs as a
solid rocket fuel. The sole domestic supplier of carbonizable rayon
fiber is the North American Corporation in Elizabethton, Tennessee.
It is my fear that if the Department of Defense does not plan for the
long-term viability of its domestic supplier of carbonizable rayon the
North American Corp. will simply go out of business and put 400 people
out of work.
Mr. SANTORUM. Could I interrupt the Senator from Tennessee and ask
where the Department of Defense would turn for carbonizable rayon fiber
in the future?
Mr. FRIST. If the North American Corp. goes out of business it is my
understanding that the Department of Defense would be forced to depend
on less reliable foreign suppliers, probably in Mexico or Asia.
Further, it is my understanding that there is a lengthy and expensive
process to qualify new suppliers that can take at least 3 years and
possibly cost millions of dollars.
Mr. SANTORUM. It is my understanding that the Department of Defense
has procured its identified requirement for this material.
Mr. FRIST. That is correct, but as you know it is always difficult to
adequately identify future requirements as the lifecycle of our many
current programs is extended and especially in consideration of the
emerging technologies where carbonizable rayon fiber could be applied.
Mr. SANTORUM. It seems to me that the Senator from Tennessee has
raised several important concerns. The Department of Defense clearly
has a responsibility to fully review each of its programs using
carbonizable rayon fiber and make certain it has planned for future
needs before allowing the Nation's only domestic supplier to go out of
business.
Mr. FRIST. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank my colleague for
joining me in discussing this important issue. I enjoin the conferees
for the fiscal year 1998 national defense authorization bill to further
consider this subject.

commission on gender integration in the military

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the recent scandals and confusion concerning
gender relations in our armed forces demonstrate a clear need to review
the experiences, practices, regulations and laws regarding these
matters as soon as possible. The nation has been treated to a range of
incidents and official responses, from the cases of abuse of authority
at the Aberdeen training facility and other military bases in the
nation, to the controversy over the

[[Page S7204]]

treatment of Air Force First Lieutenant Kelly Flinn, and that of flag
officers in the different services. A comprehensive independent review
is needed on the full range of these issues, and I am pleased that the
Armed Service Committee adopted a proposal of mine, which was co-
authored by Senators Kempthorne and Cleland, of the personnel
subcommittee, and supported by the full Committee, to establish an
independent commission to work on this matter.
The commission proposal is included as Section 552 of the bill. In
summary, the provision establishes an 11 member commission to study
issues related to gender integration. All of the commission's members
would be appointed by the Senate. They would be chosen from among
private citizens with knowledge of these matters--at least two from
academia, at least four former military members, and at least two
members of the reserve components. The duties of the Commission include
(a) reviewing the current practices of the Armed Forces, as well as
relevant studies and private sector training concepts regarding gender-
integrated training; (2) reviewing the laws, regulations, policies,
directives, and practices that govern personal relationships between
men and women in the armed forces; (3) assessing the extent to which
those laws, regulations and policies have been applied consistently
throughout the Armed Forces without regard to service, grade, or rank
of the individuals involved; (4) providing an independent assessment of
the reports of the various bodies that the Secretary of Defense has
established to look into these matters; and (5) examining the
experiences, policies and practices of the armed forces of other
industrialized nations regarding gender-integrated training. An initial
report of the Commission is due on April 15, 1998, and a final report
by September 16, 1998, with findings and any legislative and other
recommendations the Commission deems necessary. These dates were
selected to allow the second session of this Congress time to act, if
it wishes, on any recommendations that the Commission might provide.
Mr. President, clearly we are in the middle of a national debate on
gender relations and on general conduct in the services, and the work
of this independent commission to review the main issues which have
arisen seems urgent, and I hope will be of use to the Senate and to the
nation. I also hope that all of us will keep our eye on the goal of
producing the most effective, combat-ready, disciplined and tough
fighting force that the nation can field. I believe that effectiveness,
discipline, unit cohesion and morale must not ever take a second place
to any other goal, since the premier responsibility of the military is
the national security of our nation.
I again thank the committee for its strong support of my proposal,
and I hope that the commission can be put into place as soon as
possible after the Congress has completed its work on this bill and it
has been signed into law.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Thurmond,
the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, the
ranking member of the committee, and our other colleagues who serve on
the panel for their hard work and the bipartisan approach they took to
the fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense (DOD) Authorization bill.
Although I am generally pleased with the committee's work, there are
several provisions in the defense bill of great concern to me.
I am particularly disturbed by the committee's initial decision to
cut the Cooperative Threat Reduction [CTR] Program as well as the
Department of Energy's [DOE] Materials Protection Control and
Accounting [MPC&A] Program and the International Nuclear Safety Program
by a total of $135 million from the Administration's budget request.
Together, these three programs are essential to U.S. non-proliferation
efforts and are critical to protecting the United States from weapons
of mass destruction. These vital programs help Russia and other former
Soviet Republics destroy nuclear, chemical and other weapons of mass
destruction. In addition, they assist Russia in developing and
deploying security measures to safeguard their remaining nuclear
materials. Moreover, they help make much-needed improvements to Soviet-
designed nuclear powerplants in Russia and the New Independent States.
Senators Lugar and Bingaman offered an amendment that will rectify
what I think was a very shortsighted decision. Specifically, the
amendment will restore $60 million to the CTR Program, $25 million to
the MPC&A Program, and $50 million to the International Nuclear Safety
Program. These programs have long received bipartisan support, and I am
pleased the Senate adopted the Lugar-Bingaman amendment last night.
Although many Members have already discussed the CTR Program, the MPC&A
Program, and the International Nuclear Safety Program in detail, I
would like to explain why I strongly believe each should be fully
funded.
The CTR Program, which is also known as the Nunn-Lugar program for
its chief sponsors in the Senate, was established in 1991 in an effort
to reduce the threat to the United States from weapons of mass
destruction. I believe the authors of this important legislation
rightly concluded that the spread of these weapons represents the
greatest threat to U.S. national security in the post-cold war era.
Through this program, the United States has provided much-needed
assistance to Russia and other former Soviet republics to destroy
nuclear, chemical, and other weapons. In addition, the CTR Program has
helped establish verifiable safeguards against proliferation of these
weapons and fissile materials and to facilitate demilitarization of
defense industries and defense conversion activities in the former
Soviet Union.
Since its inception, the CTR Program has significantly helped reduce
the threat to the United States from weapons of mass destruction. With
this program's assistance, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakstan became
nonnuclear states, and approximately 3,400 strategic warheads have been
withdrawn from those three New Independent States to Russia. In
addition, more than 1,500 nuclear warheads have been deactivated, and
approximately 930 deployed launchers and bombers in Russia, Belarus,
Ukraine and Kazakstan have been destroyed.
Despite the CTR Program's many accomplishments, more weapons of mass
destruction have yet to be destroyed, and more needs to be done to
further reduce the threat to the United States from these weapons. The
President has requested $382 million for the CTR Program in fiscal year
1998. This funding will be used for a number of programs, all designed
to eliminate the threat Russian nuclear weapons pose to the United
States.
For example, $78 million will support the Russian elimination of
ICBM's, silo launchers, Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile [SLBM]
launchers and bombers and $77 million will be used to assist the
Ukraine eliminate SS-19 ICBM's, silos and launch control facilities.
Seven million dollars will provide safe and secure storage containers
for fissile materials from dismantled nuclear weapons. Thirty-six
million dollars will be used to provide comprehensive security
enhancements for nuclear weapons storage sites in Russia. And $55
million will help design and build a chemical weapons destruction
facility in Russia. Full funding is critical to U.S. plans to continue
implementing these initiatives. Before the Lugar-Bingaman amendment was
accepted, however, the fiscal year 1998 DOD Authorization bill had
called for the CTR Program to be cut by $60 million in fiscal year
1998.
The Department of Energy's [DOE] Materials Protection Control and
Accounting Program is a similarly worthy program. It assists Russia,
the New Independent States, and the Baltic States in their efforts to
strengthen materials protection, control, and accountability of
materials used in nuclear weapons. To date, DOE has helped establish 18
sites in Russia, the New Independent States, and the Baltic states to
safeguard plutonium and uranium weapons material. Moreover, agreements
are in place to enhance the safety and security at over 30 additional
sites. This program is critical to U.S. efforts to prevent the theft of
weapons-usable fissile materials, plutonium and highly enriched
uranium.

[[Page S7205]]

Although DOE has already helped secure hundreds of tons of nuclear
weapons materials, the overwhelming majority of material is still
poorly secured. Consequently, the administration is requesting that the
MPC&A Program be increased by $25 million in fiscal year 1998. This
funding request is necessary for U.S. plans to continue implementing
this program. Before the Lugar-Bingaman amendment was accepted,
however, the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill had called for
the MPC&A Program to continue to be funded only at fiscal year 1997
levels.
The administration's budget request also includes $50 million for the
International Nuclear Safety Program. This program, which is also
operated by DOE, helps to make improvements to Soviet-designed nuclear
powerplants in Russia and the New Independent States. By helping these
countries implement desperately needed safety measures, this program
helps reduce the risk of another Chernobyl nuclear power reactor
disaster. Again, full funding is critical to U.S. plans to continue
implementing these initiatives. Again, before the Lugar-Bingaman
amendment was accepted, the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill
would have prevented the Pentagon from providing any funds to the
International Nuclear Safety Program in fiscal year 1998.
The fiscal year 1998 DOD Authorization bill before the Senate
provides $268.2 billion in budget authority for the DOD and the
national security programs at DOE. This is $2.6 billion beyond the
level the President initially requested. In addition, the bill includes
$3.6 billion for ballistic missile defense purposes and more than $5
billion for weapons systems not originally requested by the Pentagon.
Considering those facts, it is inconceivable to me that the Senate
would cut the CTR Program, the MPC&A Program and the International
Safety Program by $135 million.
Mr. President, these three programs are critical to our efforts to
protect the United States from weapons of mass destruction. Unlike
ballistic missile defense, the CTR Program, the MPC&A Program and the
International Safety Program have already produced results and caused
the destruction of Russian nuclear weapons. Simply put, they make our
world safer. I am pleased that the Senate adopted the Lugar-Bingaman
amendment last night, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Armed
Services Committee for rectifying what would have been a tragic
mistake.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I think the time has come now that the distinguished
ranking member and myself clear what amendments are cleared on both
sides. Then I am prepared to proceed to wrap up, and we can close the
Senate down.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I hope this quorum
will not exceed 2 to 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call 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.

____________________