[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 98 (Friday, July 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7253-S7284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GULF WAR VETERANS' HEALTH
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my
colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, and I am asking that I be
included as a cosponsor. This amendment addresses some of the lessons
to be learned from the Persian Gulf War in relation to the health of
U.S. military personnel who served in that operation, many of whom are
suffering from what has come to be called Persian Gulf War Illness, or
Gulf War Syndrome.
This amendment requires the Department of Defense (DoD) and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to assess the needs of, and prepare
plans to provide effective health care to, veterans of the Persian Gulf
War and their dependents. It also directs the DoD and VA to consider
the health care needs of reservists and former members of the military
who suffer from Persian Gulf War Illness and who have fallen through
the cracks of the military and veterans health care systems. If
ultimately implemented, this plan, which is due by March 1, 1998, would
be a significant improvement over the existing tragic situation faced
by many Gulf War veterans and their families. This is the responsible
way to deal with this issue, rather than leaving these families to
struggle individually to deal with the effects of the invisible wounds
suffered in the service of our Nation. I have spoken previously about a
soldier struggling to provide health care for his child, fighting to
cope with the child's severe deformities and health conditions that may
have resulted from his exposure to toxins during the Gulf War, and
about service members who have left the military because of their
declining health and who cannot get medical insurance because of health
conditions they believe are the direct result of their service.
A special concern that has arisen from our Gulf War experience
concerns the use of new and investigational drugs and vaccines to
protect our military personnel from the deadly effects of chemical and
biological weapons. My colleague from West Virginia, Senator
Rockefeller, has taken a particular interest in this matter, and I
commend him for his vigilance in looking after the interests of our
military personnel in this regard. This amendment contains a provision
to modify the U.S. Code to require notice to all service personnel
whenever new or experimental drugs are being administered.
[[Page S7254]]
It also requires the Secretary of Defense to ensure that all service
members' medical records accurately document the administration of
these drugs, so that possible involvement in future post-war illnesses
can be better studied.
In addition to looking at ways to deal with the health after-effects
of the Gulf War, this amendment also implements other lessons learned
from health problems arising from that conflict. It requires the
Secretary of Defense to establish a system to better monitor the health
of military personnel before deploying them to future operations
overseas, and to maintain those records more efficiently. This will
correct deficiencies noted from the Gulf War experience. The amendment
also requires a plan to better track the daily movements and locations
of units and individuals during future military operations. We have
seen how important this is, given the difficulty that DoD has had over
the past year in identifying those units that were in the vicinity of
the Khamisiyah ammunition depot when U.S. forces destroyed it after the
Gulf War, possibly releasing toxic chemical nerve and blister agents
into the atmosphere. In admitting this incident, DoD officials first
said only a small number of troops were in the immediate area, but,
over time, the number of units has continued to grow, and the number of
individuals affected has climbed to over 27,000. The number is expected
to continue to grow as more information becomes available. Mr.
President, these delays only add to the concerns of our veterans, and
only continue to delay the effective medical treatment of affected
soldiers.
Also in preparation for future wars in which chemical and biological
weapons might be employed, this amendment requires a plan to deploy a
specialized chemical and biological detection unit with military forces
sent into those dangerous situations. In the Persian Gulf War, some
14,000 chemical alarms were set out and DoD witnesses have testified
that the alarms sounded an average of three times a day, for a total of
some 1.7 million alarms. Yet, most were dismissed as false alarms or
battery tests. That is not information designed to instill confidence
in these alarms, to say the least. A specialized unit could provide
more reliable detection and confirmation of the threats faced by our
forces.
On the medical front, this amendment calls for a review of the
effectiveness of medical research initiatives regarding Gulf War
illness, as well as a recommendation on the adequacy of federal funding
for this issue. Last year, I offered an amendment, which was adopted,
that provided $10 million for independent scientific research into the
possible role of low levels of chemical warfare agents in Gulf War
illnesses and their impact on the children of Gulf War veterans. This
was a field of inquiry that had not been previously addressed by the
Department of Defense or by the VA, and I am pleased that the DoD has
moved quickly to award those funds to peer-reviewed research programs.
I hope that these studies will provide answers in an expeditious
manner, so that any findings might be rapidly put to use in providing
effective treatment for our Persian Gulf veterans. It will be helpful
to have an assessment of whether our efforts to date to help these
soldiers and their families have been sufficient.
Finally, this amendment initiates a program of cooperative DoD-VA
clinical trials to assess the effectiveness of medical treatment
protocols for Persian Gulf veterans suffering from ill-defined or
undiagnosed conditions.
Mr. President, these are useful provisions that will continue to
place a much needed focus on the lingering and serious health concerns
remaining from the Persian Gulf War. The slow and half-hearted efforts
of the Department of Defense to address the health concerns of Persian
Gulf veterans over the last six years has fed the cynicism that is
spreading throughout our military, causing soldiers to lose confidence
and faith in the system that is supposed to support them, and which
they are expected to obey without question. That cynicism is a dark and
spreading cancer that must be caught and corrected early, before the
system is weakened beyond repair. This amendment is a step in that
direction, and I am pleased to cosponsor it. I thank my colleague,
Senator Dodd, for his efforts.
Chiropractic health care demonstration program
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I wanted to express my support for the
amendment offered by the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee which would extend a chiropractic health care demonstration
program currently underway by the Department of Defense.
Congress authorized for fiscal year 1995 a demonstration program to
evaluate the feasibility and desirability of furnishing chiropractic
care for the military health service system. The demonstration was
intended to be carried out over a 3-year period. Under the program,
major military treatment facilities were permitted to contract for
chiropractic health care. I would add that this follows in the wake of
Congressional support for allowing chiropractors to be commissioned in
the armed services. This amendment extends the demonstration program
for 2 more years and would expand it to at least three additional
military treatment facilities.
I believe we should expand the range of health care options available
to soldiers, not restrict them. A few years ago, the distinguished
minority leader, Senator Daschle, noted on the Senate floor that the
United States has traditionally kept alternative forms of medicine on
the fringes of society. He went on to note that, while we must protect
patients from harmful treatment, we should allow them to choose the
method and practitioner they prefer, especially when evidence indicates
that a group of practitioners provides high quality, cost-effective
care.
While I am not a doctor, I do believe that chiropractic health care
presents an important health care option for our soldiers, especially
given the types of health problems associated with the rigorous
physical activity that our soldiers routinely engage in. Lower back
pain is a frequent ailment that many soldiers understandably suffer
from time to time. Many beneficiaries of the military health care
system support the option to seek chiropractic treatment. I believe we
should support that option.
The demonstration program will allow the Department of Defense to
gather the necessary information to determine the impact and
desirability of chiropractic care. I believe this is an important step
toward assuring that we fully meet the health care needs of our men and
women in uniform. They support the option of using chiropractic care.
Let's gather the necessary information in order to make an informed
decision on the matter. I am pleased that the Senate has adopted this
amendment.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes
about the importance of this bill and the profound responsibility which
we have in determining our Nation's defense budget.
I am a cosponsor of a tactical fighter amendment which will be
proposed later today by my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin.
Senator Feingold's amendment, which calls upon the Department of
Defense to focus on strategic needs rather than special interests,
represents an intelligent and responsible approach to protecting the
security of our Nation. It is only the first step in what should be a
revolution in our thinking about defense planning and spending.
Mr. President, some people believe that the revolution in military
affairs is only a technological revolution: developing cutting-edge
technology to preserve our military dominance into the future. In order
to be successful, however, a revolution must impact strategy as well as
technology.
While we, as a country, lead the world in defense technology, we are
not making similar progress in our thinking about defense. While our
technologies may be sleek, our defense complex is not. As a result, we
spend far more than we need to in order to remain the world's
superpower.
Many people say that we can't cut corners when it comes to national
security. I agree. But that doesn't mean that we can't cut costs. In
recent weeks we have stood on this floor and cut costs in Medicare and
debated all too limited funding for education. Are we saying that we
can we afford to cut corners with our children? Our parents? Of course
not. We are saying that we have to cut costs--not corners.
[[Page S7255]]
I think we all want the same thing: to do the best for our country.
And that means protecting our children, our parents, and the security
of our Nation. It also means making wise financial decisions regarding
all of our priorities. Without a sound economy, our children, our
parents, and the security of our country are at risk.
Mr. President, I think we can be proud of what Congress has done this
year in support of a balanced budget. Still, within that balanced
budget we are not doing enough to challenge old-style thinking. In
particular, I want to draw our attention to the fact that, when every
other spending area is up for debate and in most cases adjusting to
budget cuts, the defense budget seems to be untouchable.
In fact, both the Senate and the House plan to give the
Administration $2.6 billion more than it requested for defense
spending. Why?
Mr. President, it is impossible to have rational debate about defense
spending issues because there is a majority in this body that hears the
words ``cut defense'' and then does not listen to anything else.
Now, I realize that we have a bipartisan budget agreement this year--
an agreement that takes us toward a balanced budget. Out of respect for
that hard won compromise, I will not introduce any amendments to cut
defense spending at this time. However, I urge us, as a Congress and as
a Nation, to set aside our special interests and old-style thinking,
and to look at defense spending just as we approach every other issue
of importance to our Nation's future.
Let's not give the military things they don't need and, in some
cases, haven't asked for. And let's be realistic and smart about what
it takes to defend our national interests.
Do we really need 18 Trident submarines? If we retired just two of
the older Tridents, we would still have the most powerful submarine
fleet in the world--by far.
Similarly, there is an honest debate among experts about the ideal
number of aircraft carriers. Many believe that we could hold the fleet
down to 10 carriers and have more than enough to defend our global
interests. Either of these plans would save billions of dollars over
the next few years. Why isn't this debate going on in the Senate?
I could tell you that, if we gave up those Tridents or carriers, we
could fund education or prevent crime or reduce the deficit. That's
true. And all of those initiatives could use more funding. But that is
not the only argument I want to make today. Yes, I believe we should
spend more on kids. But even if we already had every dollar we needed
for education, we still should spend our defense dollars wisely. I do
not believe that we are doing that today.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in an honest debate about our
defense needs. If we don't start examining the defense budget more
closely, it will remain a sacred cow to which we are beholden rather
than a tool which we use to further the best interests of our country.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments concerning S.
936, the fiscal year 1998 national defense authorization bill.
I worked this year with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Coats, on
the Subcommittee on Airland Forces. This was our first year as chairman
and ranking member on the subcommittee and I am pleased that we were
able to work together very cooperatively.
It was in the spirit of bipartisanship that we reviewed the
administration's budget request, the services' so-called wish lists,
the testimony of our witnesses and our colleagues' requests for funding
of various programs. In our first meeting, we agreed that we would
adopt criteria for assessing funding requests, not unlike the criteria
Senator McCain and I established in the area of military construction
several years ago.
Section 1059 of the bill expresses the sense of the Senate that, in
considering providing additional funding for the Reserve Component
equipment, the Senate look to whether there is a Joint Requirements
Oversight Council validated requirement for the equipment, that the
equipment is in the Reserve Component's modernization plan and is in
the Defense Department's Future Years Defense Program, that the
equipment is consistent with the employment and use of the Reserve
Component, that the equipment is necessary for the national security of
the country, and that additional funds could be obligated in the
upcoming fiscal year. Section 1059 expresses the sense of the Senate
that these criteria be met to the maximum extent practicable. I
appreciate my colleagues' willingness to apply these standards to our
funding decisions, so that we can work to make sure we are buying
things that we truly need.
In accordance with the recent report of the Quadrennial Defense
Review, the bill also adds about $150 million in funding for the Army's
Force XXI [``21''], a ``digitization'' program that I agree has a great
deal of potential. I am a strong supporter of the Army's efforts and I
certainly agree that digitization of the battlefield offers
tremendously enhanced situational awareness.
My concern as we embark on this multibillion dollar effort is that,
in our enthusiasm to exploit these technologies to our advantage, we
should not ignore the vulnerabilities to which these systems could
already succumb.
We need to red team this technology--by this, I mean, we need to put
ourselves in our adversaries' shoes and think about what our enemies
would do to capitalize on our reliance on digitization. Would they jam
us, would they spoof us, could they bring the whole system down? I
believe that we need to be just as enthusiastic about testing potential
vulnerabilities of digitization, because we can bet that our potential
adversaries will be trying to undo us.
So, we are requiring a report on digitization and I am pleased that,
at my request, the report will also outline the Army's plans to address
jamming vulnerabilities and to use electronic countermeasures. I will
be looking forward to that report, Mr. President.
I'd also like to take a moment to discuss one of the most difficult
areas in the budget request: funding for tactical aviation programs.
The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps will all be modernizing their
fighter forces over the course of the next two decades. The good news
is the services will field the most modern and the most lethal aircraft
in the world, the bad news is that these programs will be
extraordinarily expensive.
Over the life of the F-22, the F/A-18 E/F and the Joint Strike
Fighter programs, we can expect to spend several hundreds of billions
of dollars in procurement alone, never mind operations and support
costs. Some thought that maybe the QDR would make dramatic changes to
these programs, but the QDR essentially revalidated the requirements
for these programs with relatively small changes in the number of
aircraft to be purchased in the out years--and it is still unclear to
me when, or even whether, those cuts in the number of aircraft we will
buy are going to generate any meaningful savings.
Making decisions on the enormous funding requests associated with
these programs would be challenging enough alone, Mr. President, but
when they are put in the context of the overall DOD budget and what
just about everyone acknowledges is a sizable funding shortfall in
future procurement accounts makes this task all the more daunting.
The Subcommittee on Airland Forces had several very good hearings on
these programs. We had service witnesses, OSD witnesses, CBO, and
contractors present testimony on our requirements and our progress in
these programs both from a technical risk and a cost standpoint.
I have been very concerned that we not repeat mistakes made in the
past, where Congress was left in the dark and we ended up with an
unacceptably expensive program like the B-2 program. I'll be very
candid, Mr. President, I have some strong reservations about what is
currently happening in the F-22 program. The program is experiencing a
$2 billion overrun in the research and development program, with a risk
that there may be sizeable cost growth in the procurement program as
well.
The Air Force and the contractor assure us that they can absorb these
overruns by re-structuring the program and by taking out some
preproduction verification aircraft. Some argue that this approach
increases concurrency in
[[Page S7256]]
the program, while the Air Force argues that by slowing down the
engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program that
they will be able to reduce overall concurrency. I think the jury is
still out on that Mr. President, and that we are going to have to watch
this program very carefully.
Reasonable minds are going to disagree on what the best approach is
to addressing this problem. I am afraid that I must disagree with the
committee's approach on F-22. The bill before us cuts $500 million out
of the program--20 percent of this year's request. I just don't see how
taking such a big cut out of the program can address the cost overrun.
There's no connection between the two as far as I can tell, and worse
than that, I'm concerned that cutting the program will only serve to
increase the technical risk.
I don't want my colleagues to misunderstand me. I agree that we need
to be vigilant in our oversight of the F-22 program and we need to make
sure that adequate controls are in place so that we don't end up with
runaway costs. But, I think a better way to deal with the situation is
to fence the money--put up hurdles that the Air Force must clear before
it can have all of the money that's been requested. Once those hurdles
have been cleared, the Air Force can move forward with the program as
planned. Under the committee bill, even if the Air Force meets every
program requirement, they will still be $500 million short at the end
of the year--it seems more punitive than remedial, Mr. President.
There are some other parts of the bill to which I am adamantly
opposed. First, I take strong exception to the section included in the
general provisions which would prevent the General Accounting Office
[GAO] from conducting any self-initiated audits, under its basic
legislative authority, until all other outstanding congressional
requests have been completed.
This language amends title 31 of the United States Code and is an
unwarranted and unjustified intrusion into the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Governmental Affairs. It represents a major policy shift
in the operation and authority of GAO. One which this committee adopted
without any consultation or input from the Governmental Affairs
Committee.
The Governmental Affairs Committee held an oversight hearing on GAO
last Congress. There were several Members on each side of the aisle at
that time who served on both committees. I don't recall any Member
raising this as an issue or discussing problems regarding GAO's self-
initiated audits to light.
Moreover, the committee, under my chairmanship, contracted with the
National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] to comprehensively
review GAO's management and operations. The NAPA study did not identify
any problems related to GAO's conduct under their basic legislative
authority, nor did it make any recommendations for our consideration on
this issue. In fact, quite the contrary. Some analysts thought GAO
should perform more, not less, self-initiated audits. In their view,
GAO was often subject to rather parochial and narrow Member requests
which only drained GAO's time and resources. I would note that GAO
currently conducts 80 percent of its work in response to Member
requests. A few years ago, it was far more evenly split.
Since 1921, the Comptroller General has had broad authority to
evaluate programs and investigate on his own initiative all matters
relating to the receipt, disbursement, and use of public money. Self-
initiated authority has provided GAO the flexibility to pursue critical
issues that auditors and investigators uncover in the course of their
work. It is essential to the maintenance of generally accepted
standards of independence and impartiality. Any restriction of this
authority would be akin to us muzzling the auditor. The effect of this
provision would be that, for example, work could not proceed on the
next set of high risk list reports until all Member requests--just
think if a Member requested GAO to examine alien abductions--not only
had been staffed, but had been completed. On large jobs, it may take
well over a year to do the work.
I know from my long service on the Governmental Affairs Committee
that Members often disagree with GAO's conclusions on a particular
report. That has happened to me more than once. But if we demand
objectivity, and I think all of us do, then we must give GAO the
independence and authority they need to do the job. We want them to be
able to investigate mismanagement or fraud wherever it exists.
I regret that this committee did not see fit to consult with GAO's
authorizing committee before slipping this provision in a massive bill
at the last moment. I know that I, during my chairmanship of the
Governmental Affairs Committee, would at least have consulted with the
Armed Services Committee if we were going to act on legislation
affecting title 10.
For these reasons, I will do all I can to strike this provision from
this bill and I would hope my colleagues on both committees would join
with me.
The committee's bill contains five land conveyance provisions--
including one that was added at literally the last minute of the
markup--and in their current form I am opposed to each of them. These
conveyances are as follows:
Section 2813, Land Conveyance Hawthorne Army Ammunition Depot,
Mineral County NV. This provision would authorize the Secretary of the
Army to convey, at no cost, 33 acres of real property currently used as
Army housing to Mineral County Nevada.
Section 2815, Land Conveyance, Topsham Annex Naval Air Station,
Brunswick ME. This provision would authorize the Secretary of the Navy
to convey, at no cost to the Maine School Administrative District No.
75, 40 acres or real property including improvements to the property.
Section 2816, Land Conveyance Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
No. 464 Oyster Bay, NY. This provision would authorize the Secretary of
the Navy to convey at no cost 110 acres of real property, including
equipment, fixtures, special tools, and test equipment all of which
comprise the Naval Industrial Reserve Plant No. 464 to the County of
Nassau, NY.
Section 2817, Land Conveyance Charleston Family Housing Complex,
Bangor ME. This provision would authorize the Secretary of the Air
Force to convey at no cost 20 acres of real property currently used as
Air Force housing to the city of Bangor ME.
Section 2818, Land Conveyance Ellsworth Air Force Base, SD. This
provision would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to convey at
no cost 5 parcels of land totalling more than 290 acres to the Greater
Box Elder Area Economic Development Corporation in Box Elder, SD. Each
of the five parcels of land contains military housing units.
I am extremely disappointed that the committee has discontinued a
process to evaluate land conveyances which started when I was chairman
of the Readiness Subcommittee, and which was continued by Senator
McCain when he was chairman. This informal process sought to ensure
that taxpayer's interests were partially protected, by conducting an
expedited 30-day screen conducted by the General Services
Administration for other Federal interest of each proposed conveyance.
Because these land conveyance provisions waive the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act, the committee cannot assure taxpayers that
the Federal Government is not seeking to acquire property that is
similar to what the legislative provisions are giving away.
Now, Mr. President, some have suggested that screening this property
for Federal interest is just a bureaucratic procedure that delays the
productive use of property which the Member in his or her judgement
believes to be the best interest of his or her constituents. Others
have suggested that this process is a waste of time because the
expedited screening policy implemented by Senator McCain and myself
never resulted in property being flagged for other Federal use.
I would like to address each of these points.
First, Federal screening is the law of the land. If Congress, and the
Armed Services Committee in particular, believe that it is no longer
necessary, the appropriate action is to amend the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act. It also appears that the intent of several
of these conveyances is to get around the McKinney Act which Congress
passed to address the needs of the homeless. I think it should be made
clear that the McKinney Act has by and large been successful in
providing housing to the homeless. If the proponents of these
conveyances disagree, they should seek to amend McKinney rather than
continually waive it.
Now let me explain why Federal screening of excess property makes
[[Page S7257]]
sense. I refer to a chart provided by the General Services
Administration entitled, ``Recent Examples of Excess Real Property
Screened by GSA with Federal Agencies and Subsequently Transferred to
other Federal Agencies for Continued Federal Use.''
Mr. President this chart shows why Federal screening of excess
property saves taxpayer dollars. The chart lists five examples,
including two from the Department of Defense, where excess property
from one agency was transferred to another Federal agency as a result
of the screening process. The total value of property in these five
examples is almost $36 million. What this means Mr. President, is that
the screening process saved Federal taxpayers $36 million dollars
because the receiving agencies were able to utilize property which the
holding agency no longer needed.
Now I would ask the chairman or ranking member of the Readiness
Subcommittee whether he can tell me if there is any Federal interest in
the property which the committee proposes to give away?
I would further ask my friends what harm they see in ensuring that
taxpayer's interests are minimally protected by requiring a Federal
screen before allowing these conveyances to go forward? Would my
colleague consider accepting an amendment for each of the conveyances I
have identified that would require a satisfactory Federal screen as a
condition of the conveyance?
It seems to me that there is the potential with these land
conveyances for the taxpayer to lose twice. Once because another
Federal agency may have a need for this property. And a second time
because we are authorizing the military to give away the property
instead of trying to seek a fair market value for it.
In the past, when I was chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee we
asked the General Services Administration to provide a preliminary
estimate of the value of the property which the committee was proposing
to give away. I would note that each of the five conveyances included
in the committee's bill would convey the property for no consideration.
I think, at a minimum, we should at least have a ball park estimate of
how much money the Government is losing with these provisions.
I would expect that my colleagues who speak of the importance of
balancing the budget and are so-called deficit hawks would be
interested in the result of GSA's valuation of these properties.
To conclude I have asked the GSA to conduct a 30-day screen for each
property, and make an estimate, to the extent possible, of the value of
each proposed conveyance. I will make this information available to my
colleagues as soon as I have it.
In addition, I am strongly opposed to the committee's action in
raising the budget for the space-based laser by $118 million.
Deployment of this dubious star wars holdover would violate the ABM
Treaty, cost an exorbitant amount, and not address any real current or
anticipated near-term threat to our security. I have similar concerns
about the $80 million that the committee is recommending for the
antisatellite [ASAT] program.
The committee can find $118 for the space based laser and $80 million
for ASAT, but is slashing $135 million from one of our most valuable
national security programs, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
The proposal to cut $25 million from the Energy Department's Materials
Protection, Control and Accounting [MPC&A] Program, another $50 million
from the Department's international nuclear safety program, and $60
million from the CTR program itself--are to me extremely ill-advised. I
strongly support the efforts by Senator Bingaman to restore and to
increase funds for the MPC&A Program and the Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention program.
Perhaps most extraordinary of all was the committee's agreement to
increase the National Missile Defense Program by a whopping $474
million without even first requiring a detailed explanation of how
these funds would be spent. The committee's action offers strong
evidence of a double standard at work in the current Congress, in which
social and environmental programs are being slashed and subjected to
congressional micromanagement, while a massive and provocative defense
program escapes close congressional scrutiny. The committee is giving
all the appearance here of handing the NMD Program a blank check, at
the same time another bill, S. 7, would force the President to deploy a
NMD system by the year 2003. I regard these actions both as poor
defense policy and poor management of the public's funds.
Finally, I regret that the committee has acceded to the Department's
request to cut end strength further. I understand the rationale that is
used to support continued end strength reductions, i.e., to cut end
strength in order to generate cash savings that can help pay for
modernization programs, and I agree completely that our service-members
deserve to have the best and most modern equipment available. However,
I do not agree with the approach that we reduce the size of the force
to pay for it.
We are using the military for peacetime operations as much today as
at any time during the cold war. I believe that if we want to continue
to deploy a superb and ready force, we cannot cut the size of the force
year after year and operate at the same optempo. Even if modernization
programs can reduce the manpower needed to conduct wartime or peacetime
operations in the long term, in the near term, we still need people to
carry out our important worldwide commitments.
I am concerned that we are rapidly falling below the manning levels
necessary to either conduct our peacetime operations or credibly
maintain a combat force capable of carrying out two nearly simultaneous
major regional contingencies. Unfortunately, I do not believe it is
possible to build a consensus in the Congress to maintain the
appropriate size force, which I believe to be about 1.6 million active
duty, when the Defense Department, itself, argues that it does not need
these personnel and views the savings from end strength reductions as a
relatively easy way to fund its weapons programs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the DOD
authorization bill for fiscal year 1998. This is a responsible bill
that recognizes the national security threats we face, and properly
funds the operations and modernization accounts needed to support the
finest military in the world.
Over the past year, we have been constantly reminded that our
military must be able to respond to a variety of threats all over the
globe. The United States is unlike any other country in that we can
identify important national interests in every region on the Earth, and
our military must have the right equipment, training and resources to
protect those interests. Our Armed Forces must be prepared for a
variety of missions, from peacekeeping, humanitarian, and peace
enforcement operations to rapid, full scale deployment.
This authorization bill recognizes the missions and roles our Armed
Forces will face and provides an appropriate level of funding. While
the fiscal year 1998 DOD authorization bill is nearly $3 billion higher
than the President's budget request, it keeps total defense spending
$3.3 billion below last year's inflation adjusted level. Although some
of my colleagues may think this a negligible reduction, this is the
13th year in a row where the U.S. defense budget is less than it was
the year before.
I believe this bill takes a significant step forward regarding DOD's
depot maintenance policy. It maintains the public/private competition
for depot maintenance workloads at Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases
which can save future taxpayer dollars. If the competitions for these
workloads are won by the private sector, hundreds of millions of
dollars in savings could be realized by avoiding the costs of new
military construction, movement of the workload, and retraining workers
at the remaining Air Logistics Centers. Privatization of non-core depot
maintenance workloads is supported by Gen. John Shalikashvili, Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dr. John White, Deputy Secretary of
Defense, the Aerospace Industries Association, Business Executives for
National Security, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Public/private
competition is a good idea, and I am pleased this bill recognizes its
value.
This bill also moves to address the critical readiness issues by
author-
[[Page S7258]]
izing more than $77 billion in near-term readiness funding. This
includes an increase of more than $1 billion for high priority programs
such as ammunition procurement, flying hours, cold weather gear, and
barracks renovation.
This year's defense bill also recognizes the needs of our men and
women in uniform. I believe the committee wisely includes additional
military construction projects, adopts a single, price-based housing
allowance based on a national index for housing costs, and a 2.8
percent pay raise to better our uniformed military's standard of
living.
I applaud the adoption of Senator Stevens' amendment, to which I was
an original cosponsor, to create a position on the Joint Chiefs of
Staff for a four-star general to represent the National Guard Bureau.
The National Guard is a vital part of our armed services, serving in
times of crisis both at home and abroad. A four-star general will give
the National Guard, which now comprise 55 percent of our ground forces,
equal consideration and input at the real decision making levels in the
Department of Defense.
I do not, however, support all the extra funds that were added to
this bill. I felt it important to support of Senator Bingaman's
amendment to cut $118 million from the Space Based Laser Program. I
believe that a national missile defense is a laudable goal. There is,
however, no immediate or even mid-term threat to U.S. security that
suggests the need for the immediate development of this space based
national missile defense system. Only Russia and China have nuclear-
armed ICBM's that can reach the United States and China has no more
than a dozen or so of these weapons. There is consensus within the
national security and intelligence communities that it is very unlikely
that additional countries can or will build ICBM's within the next two
decades.
I will continue to strongly support the funding of critical theater
missile defense systems and a national missile defense system that meet
projected threats and achieve an affordable ballistic missile defense.
Under this scenario, should threats to the United States begin to
materialize, we will have sufficient lead-time to respond to those
threats, and dedicate higher funding levels to develop and deploy a
national missile defense system.
I also supported the Wellstone amendment to offset cuts in the
veterans' health care budget by allowing the Secretary of Defense to
transfer up to $400 million from DOD funds. I believe it is imperative
that we support our veterans who have fought to guarantee us our
freedom. The planned cuts in the VA will certainly have an effect on
the availability and quality of health care and other essential
services that are available to our veterans. I believe it would be only
fair to give the Secretary of Defense the ability to transfer the funds
which would offset the VA cuts, especially when this bill authorizes
$2.6 billion more than the President's request.
Finally, Mr. President, I believe the Senate has acted wisely in
requiring a comprehensive study of the base closure process before any
further base realignment and closure rounds can occur. As the senior
senator from California, I have seen firsthand how cumbersome and
nightmarish the BRAC process has been. Communities continue to struggle
with the base reuse process. In addition, environmental cleanup of
closed bases is proceeding much slower and at much greater cost than
expected. Finally, there are no reliable figures to show how much the
Department of Defense has saved in the prior BRAC rounds, much less
reliable estimates for savings in future rounds. I will not vote for
further base closure rounds until these problems are resolved.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I seek to withdraw an amendment I have
filed to the fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization bill because I see
that pressing ahead with this amendment at this time would only delay
passage of this important legislation. Before I formally withdraw my
amendment, however, I wish to inform my colleagues about the
circumstances which prompted me to introduce this measure--
circumstances which continue today.
A basic unfairness exists within the current regulations for
membership in the National Guard. This inconsistency arbitrarily
penalizes some patriotic Americans who serve their country well. It
also hinders the ability of some National Guard units to attract and
retain the most qualified individuals, thereby undermining the
effectiveness of those units.
This situation was brought to my attention because of a constituent
of mine, Robert Echols, of Nashville. Mr. Echols, a Federal district
court judge in the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Tennessee, is also a
colonel in the Tennessee National Guard where he has served with
distinction for 27 years. In September 1995, Colonel Echols was
recommended for promotion to the rank of brigadier general.
Although Colonel Echols' promotion was supported by the chief judge
of the sixth judicial district, the Tennessee National Guard, and the
National Guard Bureau here in Washington, to date his promotion has
been delayed. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs has cited a regulation limiting Guard service by
certain Federal officials to explain this delay. Further exacerbating
the unfairness to Colonel Echols is the fact that this regulation is
inconsistently applied. Other Federal officials who should fall within
the scope of the regulation serve in the Guard unhindered.
I have been working with the Pentagon since early this year to
rectify this unfair situation. Thus far, no solution has been found.
Indeed, the Pentagon has been unwilling to reconsider Colonel Echols'
circumstance. They have also opposed my amendment to this legislation.
I offered my amendment in an attempt to address the specific
situation of district court judges serving in the National Guard.
Considering that the chief of the sixth circuit has written that Mr.
Echols' Guard service does not hinder his ability to serve as a judge,
it is clear to me that civil servants in this category should be
considered for National Guard service on a case-by-case basis. That is
what my amendment would have done.
Nevertheless, it has become clear to me that pressing forward in this
fashion at this time will only delay passage of the critical Defense
authorization bill, probably without rectifying the underlying problem.
I will, therefore, withdraw the amendment at this time. I do intend,
however, to continue working to find a solution to this unfair
situation which penalizes Americans seeking to serve their country and
undermines the effectiveness of National Guard units.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as the fiscal year 1998 Defense
authorization bill moves to conference to resolve differences between
the Senate and House versions of the bill, I am hopeful the conferees
will give careful consideration to the Senate provision addressing the
issue of the disposal of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile. This
provision requires an additional report to Congress by the Secretary of
Defense on options available to the Department of Defense for the
disposal of chemical weapons and agents.
Since 1985, Congress has directed the Army to conduct a number of
studies and evaluations of our Nation's chemical weapons stockpile in
order to determine the safest and most effective method of disposal.
Regardless of the destruction timetables set forth in the recently
ratified Chemical Weapons Convention, U.S. chemical agents and
munitions must be disposed of by 2004 as a matter of national policy.
Determining a safe and cost effective method for disposal of our
Nation's chemical weapons stockpile is an issue of concern to many
communities and citizens located near the Army's eight CW storage
sites. In my home State more than 1,000 1-ton containers of bulk VX
nerve agent are stored at the Newport Army Chemical Activity, Newport,
IN.
At the direction of Congress, the Army examined a range of disposal
options and methods and involved significant public participation in
the review process. The Army also considered the recommendations
contained in an independent report on certain alternative technologies
prepared by the National Academy of Sciences at the request of
Congress.
On December 6, 1996, the Army recommended that the Department of
Defense utilize a neutralization process
[[Page S7259]]
for disposal of bulk chemical agents stored at Aberdeen Proving Ground,
MD, and Newport, IN. On January 17, 1997, the Department of Defense
authorized the Army to proceed with the necessary activities to pilot
test two neutralization-based processes for the destruction of chemical
agents stored at Aberdeen and Newport.
As the conference meets to resolve differences between the House and
Senate-passed versions of the fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization
bill, I am hopeful conferees will be mindful of the important progress
made by Congress and the Army since 1986 to address this issue.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished chairman,
we are prepared to exchange a package of routine amendments which have
been agreed to by the chairman, Mr. Thurmond, and the distinguished
ranking member, Mr. Levin, and as far as this Senator knows that is the
last item prior to final passage.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it sounds to me as if good progress has been
made here, and we are about ready to come to final passage on this very
important legislation. I think it is a monumental achievement to be
able to move a Department of Defense authorization bill in the way this
has been moved and in the time it has been moved.
Therefore, after this vote, then, it will be the last vote of today.
Following the disposition of the DOD authorization bill, the Senate
will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Joel
Klein to be an Assistant Attorney General. I expect some debate at the
very minimum on that nomination today. The Senate will begin the DOD
appropriations bill at 12 noon on Monday and at 3 p.m. on Monday
conduct a cloture vote on the Klein nomination. Therefore, the next
rollcall vote will occur at 5 p.m. on Monday. I encourage all Members
who intend to amend the DOD appropriations bill to be prepared to offer
their amendments on Monday. We hope to complete that bill by the close
of business or afternoon Tuesday. This will be the final vote this week
until Monday.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. WARNER. 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.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as soon as this is worked out, I will
not hold up the vote, but I just want to commend everyone for getting
this very important bill through the Senate. The distinguished
committee chairman, Senator Thurmond, our wonderful President pro
tempore, has worked hardest to make sure that we have the armed
services authorization with the policies in place that we need to
provide for the strong national defense of this country. I commend him
and his ranking member, Senator Levin, and all of those on the
committee who have tried to make sure that we are using our tax dollars
in an efficient way but with the foremost goal of providing the
security of our country and for the support of the troops both in
training, quality of life, and the technology that we need to make sure
that our troops are the safest they can be when they are in the field
and that they have the best equipment of any troops in the world, so
that when they are called on to fight for the security of our Nation,
they will be able to do the job.
I commend the committee and I commend its leaders.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and 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. COATS. 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. COATS. Mr. President, I do not intend to talk any longer than
necessary, until we get a signal that we are ready to go to final
passage. I don't want to hold anything up. I know a lot of people have
planes to catch and commitments to make, and are very anxious to
finalize this bill as quickly as possible. But, in that we were in a
quorum call and not quite there yet, let me just take this opportunity
to say how profoundly disappointed I am that we were not able to do
anything to move toward additional base closings.
I doubt there is a Member in this body that doesn't understand that
we have too much capacity. We had a force structure designed to address
the cold war. The threats have changed, the force structure has been
reduced, but the base infrastructure has not been reduced accordingly.
As a consequence, with a fixed top budget line, that means we have to
spread our resources around in areas that are not essential and
sacrifice areas that are essential.
We do not begin to have the amount of money needed to modernize our
forces. We have been talking about this for years and we keep
postponing that. The quality of life for our soldiers, particularly in
housing, has suffered. The state of our military housing is deplorable.
Nearly two-thirds of current military housing is substandard and
substandard by military standards, which is even below civilian
standards. I am ashamed at what we ask people who commit to serve this
country to live in; how we ask them to live. I have toured and visited
those barracks, those homes. As former chairman of the personnel
subcommittee, I made it a point to visit many bases both here and
abroad. The state of our military housing is deplorable.
We cannot begin to shift enough funds there if we can't find the
funds to shift. One of the ways proposed to address that is additional
rounds of base closings. I know they are painful. None of us want to
close bases in our States. I have had to participate in two base
closings in our State and we only had two bases. But the people of
Indiana supported that because they felt it was necessary, we did have
excess capacity. And it was done in a fair manner. It was not easy. It
was not painless. But it was necessary.
The argument that we have heard here on the floor that we don't know
what the cost is going to be is a ludicrous argument. If you take that
to its logical conclusion, we ought to be doubling the number of bases
because it is going to save us money, because if cutting bases costs
money it just makes sense that adding bases, new bases, would save
money.
Every industry in America has had to adjust to the global changes
that are taking place in business and become more productive. They have
had to do more with less. So whether it's auto companies or electronics
manufacturers or whatever, they have had to close excess capacity. Does
that mean people get laid off? Yes. Transferred? Yes. Does it mean that
communities are impacted? Yes. But for the institution to be viable for
the future, it is a necessary step. Otherwise everybody gets hurt. Yet
we refuse to do that here. I am just disappointed that we could not at
least put some process--not even defining the process--but some process
that would move us toward reducing this infrastructure and addressing
the long-term problem that we have.
We might not get the savings in 3 years. It might not directly offset
in the 5-year budget plan. But we know it is going to accrue positively
for the Department of Defense at some point in the future; that
maintaining these bases is simply going to continue to drain money from
essential functions, to put pressure on pay, to put pressure on health
care for the military members and their dependents, to put pressure on
housing, quality of life, modernization and everything else.
Mr. President, we are moving toward finalizing this bill. It looks
like an agreement is reached and I will yield the floor. We can talk
about this more at another time.
Several Senators addressed Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1998 Defense budget
request sent over by the administration continues to reflect the low
priority given to our men and women serving in the armed services. For
the third straight year, the administration has inadequately funded the
national security interest of this Nation, particularly in the
modernization accounts. Congress
[[Page S7260]]
added $2.6 billion in funding to the administration's request in order
to provide the resources necessary to execute required national
tasking. Additionally, the committee refocused the administration's
budget request, adding over $5.2 billion to the procurement and
research and development modernization accounts.
Service Chiefs requested that any potential additional funding be
devoted toward key modernization accounts, as reflected in the
respective services unfunded priority lists. Unfortunately, the bills
proposed by the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House National
Security Committee include a plethora of programs not requested by the
Defense Department, virtually ignoring the request of the Pentagon and
impeding the military's ability to channel resources where they are
most needed. In my opinion, this bill contains in excess of $4.9
billion in questionable add-ons and expenditures that do little to
contribute to our national security. Similarly, the House defense bill
contains over $5.5 billion in objectionable defense adds.
Mr. President, the following highlight some of the more egregious
projects:
The military construction and family housing accounts received
unrequested plus-ups for low-priority U.S. based projects totaling over
$772.0 million, including over $262.5 million for the National Guard
and Reserves. This MILCON plus-up represents over $100 million more
than was added to the 1997 Defense budget request. However, unlike last
year, the committee has not had the luxury of adding nearly $13 billion
to the overall budget request. The MILCON plus-up includes over $85
million for the construction of nine readiness and reserve centers for
the Guard and Reserve at the same time that National Guard and Reserve
end-strength is being cut by over 54,000 personnel.
The procurement account includes the unrequested funding of $343.3
million for six C-130 aircraft. General Fogleman testified before the
committee that the Air Force had too many C-130 aircraft, in fact, he
called it ``An embarrassment of riches.'' The House bill includes $331
million to keep the B-2 line open. The Chief of Naval Operations, No. 1
priority on his unfunded priority list was the addition of four F/A-
18E/F aircraft. This request, his No. 1 priority, was overlooked by
both committees.
The Senate bill includes $2.6 billion for procurement of four new
attack submarines and proposes a teaming arrangement which effectively
eliminates competition among shipyards. The American taxpayer will soon
find itself funding submarines less capable by design than the Seawolf,
and without the benefit of economic common sense which competition and
free market principles would provide the cost will approach that of the
Seawolf.
The bill includes unrequested plus-ups in excess of $42 million for
automotive and combat vehicle technology research, including research
on vehicle composites, electric drives, and battery recharging.
Included are plus-ups to medical research and development projects
totaling over $26.5 million for retinal display research, freeze dried
blood, and human factors engineering, among others.
Funding of approximately $17 million for unrequested research into
the next generation Internet. I believe Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are
capable of continuing the computer revolution without additional
funding from DOD.
Mr. President, in summary, I am sure there are many programs on my
list which may be good programs. I am sure that they benefit certain
States, however, with military training exercises continuing to be cut,
backlogs in aircraft and ship maintenance, flying hour shortfalls,
military health care underfunded by $600 million, and 11,787
servicemembers reportedly on food stamps, I believe we need to forgo,
in General Fogleman's terms, the ``Embarrassment of riches''.
Overall, I believe the committee has produced a fine defense bill,
and I voted in favor of reporting it out of committee. It is imperative
that we maintain the additional $2.6 billion added to the
administration's request and I support the redirection of funds to the
modernization accounts. However, the allocation of some of those funds
to unnecessary spending still warrants concern, and I urge my
colleagues to look carefully at these add-ons.
I ask unanimous consent two tables of objectionable programs be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the record, as follows:
Objectionable programs in the fiscal year 1998 Senate Armed Services
defense bill
[In millions of dollars]
PROCUREMENT
Army: C-XX Medium-Range Aircraft (5)......................... 23.0
Navy:
SSN-21 (SEAWOLF)........................................... 153.4
New Attack Submarine....................................... 2,600.0
Advance Procurement for TAGS-65............................ 75.2
Other Propellers and Shafts................................ 38.3
Amphibious Raid Equipment.................................. 1.6
Air Force:
C-130J Logistics........................................... 48.0
WC-130J (3)................................................ 177.0
Logistic Support for WC-130J............................... 29.7
EC-130J.................................................... 70.5
C-130J (2)................................................. 95.8
National Guard and Reserve Equipment....................... 653.0
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Army:
University and Industry Research Centers................... 2.3
Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology................... 4.0
Medical Advanced Technology................................ 4.6
Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology.......... 9.0
DoD High Energy Laser Test Facility........................ 10.0
Army Research Institute.................................... 3.6
National Automotive Center................................. 4.0
Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System............................. 8.7
Radford Environmental Development and Mgmt. Program........ 6.0
Naval Surface Warfare Center (ID) and Industry R&D......... 1.75
Intravenous Membrane Oxygenator Technology................. 1.0
Navy:
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology................... 16.0
Medical Development........................................ 2.5
Industrial Preparedness.................................... 50.0
National Oceanographic Partnership Program................. 16.0
Freeze-Dried Blood Research Project........................ 2.5
Air Force:
Phillips Lab Exploratory Development....................... 15.0
High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program............. 11.0
Defensewide:
Electronic Commerce Resource Centers....................... 3.0
Management Headquarters (Auxiliary Forces)................. 5.8
Advanced Lithography....................................... 22.0
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Center for Excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian
Assistance (Hawaii)......................................... 5.0
MISCELLANEOUS
Center for the Study of the Chinese Military National Defense
University (NDU)............................................ 5.0
----------
Senate procurement, RDT&E, and miscellaneous, total.... 4,172.0
Senate Milcon and Family Housing....................... 772.9
----------
Total Senate Questionable Spending..................... 4,944.9
Objectionable Programs in the fiscal year 1998 House National Security
defense bill
[In millions of dollars]
PROCUREMENT
Army:
C-12 Passenger Jets (modifications)......................... 6.0
Automatic Data Processing Equipment......................... 13.0
Navy:
SSN-21 (SEAWOLF)............................................ 153.4
New Attack Submarine........................................ 2,600.0
KC-135 Tankers Re-Engining (3).............................. 179.7
TAGS Oceanographic Ship (1)................................. 75.2
LCAC SLEP................................................... 17.3
Fast Patrol Craft (modifications)........................... 20.0
Sonobuoys (those not on ``wish list'')...................... 13.5
Marine Corps: Fuel Storage Tanks.............................. 2.0
Air Force:
B-2A Spirit Bomber.......................................... 331.2
EC-130J (1)................................................. 49.9
C-130J (5).................................................. 293.0
AGM-65 Maverick Missile (no missiles procured; keep
production line warm)...................................... 11.0
Weather Observation/Forecasting Program..................... 4.0
Defense-Wide:
Automated Document Conversion System........................ 30.0
BMD National Laboratory Program............................. 50.0
[[Page S7261]] ____
University-Based research Center to Oversee DoE Defense
Projects................................................... 5.0
National Guard and Reserved: Total Reserved and Guard
Equipment Add................................................ 700.3
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Army:
Passive Camera Technology................................... 5.0
Combat Vehicle & Automotive Technology...................... 11.0
Field Battery Recharging Capability......................... 5.0
Battery Manufacturing Technology............................ 3.0
Combat Vehicle Composites................................... 2.0
Combat Vehicle Electric Drive............................... 1.0
Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs......................... 20.1
Electromechanic & Hypervelocity Research.................... 1.9
Projectile Detection & Cueing............................... 2.5
Computer-Based Land Management Model........................ 4.9
BEST........................................................ 4.0
VREMT....................................................... 3.5
Scram Jet Development....................................... 8.0
Tactical Internet C3 Protection............................. 2.0
Electrorheological Fluids Recoil............................ 5.0
Human Factors Engineering Technology........................ 5.1
Eye Research, Retinal Display Technology.................... 5.0
Life Support For Trauma & Transport......................... 6.0
End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities................. 15.0
Navy:
Freeze Dried Blood.......................................... 2.5
Medical Mobile Monitor...................................... 4.0
Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells......................... 1.8
Carbonate Fuel Cells........................................ 3.5
Surface/Aerospace Surveillance And Weapons Technology Free
Electron Laser............................................. 10.0
Surface/Aerospace Surveillance and Weapons Technology Free
Electron Laser............................................. 10.0
AN/SPS-48E Air Search Radar at Naval Engineering Center..... 6.0
Air Force:
Phillips Lab Exploratory Development........................ 6.0
Protein-based Ultra-High Density Memory..................... 3.0
ALR-69M Radar Warning Receiver.............................. \1\ 14.0
Space Plane................................................. 15.0
Space Scorpius.............................................. 15.0
Solar Thermionics Orbital Transfer Vehicle.................. 20.0
Atmospheric Interceptor Technology.......................... 25.0
Eglin Air Force Base Instrumentation Improvements........... 14.8
Defense-Wide:
Next Generation Internet.................................... 15.0
Wide Bandgap Semiconductors................................. 10.0
Computing Systems and Communications Reuse Technology....... 4.5
Flat Panel Display Dual Use Initiative...................... 23.0
3-D Microelectronics Technology Initiative.................. 7.5
Environmentally Safe Energetic Materials Research........... 3.0
Advanced Lithography Technologies Program................... 21.0
MARITECH.................................................... 4.0
Joint Robotics Teleoperation Capability Program............. 10.0
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Center for excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian
Assistance (Hawaii).......................................... 5.0
MISCELLANEOUS
Center for the Study of Chinese Military National Defense
University (NDU)............................................. 5.0
PILOT PROGRAM
Plasma Arc Melter System Pilot Program........................ 4.0
TITLE XXXVI
Maritime Administration Authorization of Appropriations....... 109.0
---------
Procurement, RDT&E, and miscellaneous total............. 4,917.0
Milcon and Family Housing............................... 733.6
---------
Total House questionable spending....................... 5,650.6
\1\ Denote programs for National Guard or Reserve.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to just for 10 seconds thank my
friend from Indiana, the most knowledgeable member of the Armed
Services Committee on personnel issues, and his advocacy for what is
right about this base closing issue. It is important and critical. I
think most of my colleagues will understand the argument he just made
because we are going to pay for this in a big way if we don't reverse
the vote that was taken most recently. I yield.
Amendment No. 423, Withdrawn
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment No. 423.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 423) was withdrawn.
Mr. WARNER. I am pleased to say on behalf of Senator Thurmond, the
ranking member and I, are now ready to take up a series of amendments
which have been agreed to by both sides. Following the adoption of
these amendments, I know of no reason why we cannot go to final
passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Amendment No. 666, Withdrawn
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
666, an amendment of Senator Wellstone, be withdrawn at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 666) was withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Amendments Agreed To En Bloc
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send a package of amendments to the
desk and ask consent that these amendments be considered as read and
agreed to en bloc; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en
bloc, and finally, that any statement relating to any of the amendments
appear at this point in the Record. These amendments are cleared
amendments and have been agreed to by both sides of the aisle.
Mr. LEVIN. No objection, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were considered and agreed to en bloc, as follows:
Amendment No. 594, as Modified
(Purpose: To consolidate and strengthen restrictions on the use of
human test subjects in biological and chemical weapons research)
At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1075. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF HUMANS AS EXPERIMENTAL
SUBJECTS IN BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS
RESEARCH.
(a) Prohibited Activities.--No officer or employee of the
United States may, directly or by contract--
(1) conduct any test or experiment involving the use of any
chemical or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) otherwise conduct any testing of biological or chemical
agents on human subjects.
(b) Inapplicability to Certain Actions.--The prohibition in
subsection (a) does not apply to any action carried out for
any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical,
therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial,
research, or other activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection
against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical or
biological weapons.
(3) Any military purpose of the United States that is not
connected with the use of a chemical weapon and is not
dependent on the use of the toxic or poisonous properties of
the chemical weapon to cause death or other harm.
(4) Any law enforcement purpose, including any domestic
riot control purpose and any imposition of capital
punishment.
(c) Biological Agent Defined.--In this section, the term
``biological agent'' means any micro-organism (including
bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa),
pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally
occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any
such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance,
whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable
of causing--
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a
human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or
materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.
(d) Report and Certification.--Section 1703(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (50
U.S.C. 1523(b)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(9) A description of any program involving the testing of
biological or chemical agents on human subjects that was
carried out by the Department of Defense during the period
covered by the report, together with a detailed justification
for the testing, a detailed explanation of the purposes of
the testing, the chemical or biological agents tested, and
the Secretary's certification that informed consent to the
testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of
the testing on that subject.''.
[[Page S7262]]
(e) Repeal of Duplicative, Superseded, and Executed Laws.--
Section 808 of the Department of Defense Appropriation
Authorization Act, 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1520) is repealed.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the managers of the
Department of Defense authorization bill and the committees for their
assistance and support of my amendment.
Earlier this year, the Senate ratified the Chemical Weapons
Convention. This historic treaty puts into U.S. law a clear prohibition
on the testing, production, and stockpiling of an entire class of
terrible weapons of mass destruction, and we are now part of the
international institutions which will enforce the treaty worldwide.
Even with this clear ban, constituents have written me concerned
that, without their consent, human test subjects are used to research
chemical and biological weapons agents, or that the Government, with
the consent of local elected officials and Congress, may conduct
experiments on civilian populations. Very often, these concerns are
based on reading existing provisions in the United States Code that
appear to permit it. The provision in question, contained in title 50,
United States Code, Chapter 32, Section 1520, is a relic of the cold
war, and my amendment strikes it.
Further, to make it clear that such testing is no longer permitted,
this amendment spells out a clear, easily understood prohibition of the
use of human test subjects in chemical and biological weapons research.
To prevent confusion, this amendment spells out the distinction between
weapons testing and such peaceful medical research such as the search
for a cure for AIDS or developing vaccines for deadly diseases. But to
make sure that even this peaceful research is not misused, my
amendments adds a new reporting requirement for the Pentagon to
describe in detail every year exactly what sort of medical and peaceful
research is conducted and requires the Department of Defense to certify
that full informed consent was obtained in advance from anybody
participating in this research. Congress, and most importantly, the
public must have the best possible information about these programs.
A provision that, on the surface, appears to permit testing of
chemical weapons on civilian populations has no place in U.S. law, and
I thank my colleagues for joining me in striking it.
amendment no. 595 as modified
(Purpose: Reports on procedures for providing information and
assistance to families of victims of Department of Defense aviation
accidents)
At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1041. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FAMILY
NOTIFICATION AND ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES IN CASES
OF MILITARY AVIATION ACCIDENTS.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) There is a need for the Department of Defense to
improve significantly the family notification procedures of
the department that are applicable in cases of Armed Forces
personnel casualties and Department of Defense civilian
personnel casualties resulting from military aviation
accidents.
(2) This need was demonstrated in the aftermath of the
tragic crash of a C-130 aircraft off the coast of Northern
California that killed 10 Reserves from Oregon on November
22, 1996.
(3) The experience of the members of the families of those
Reserves has left the family members with a general
perception that the existing Department of Defense procedures
for notifications regarding casualties and related matters
did not meet the concerns and needs of the families.
(4) It is imperative that Department of Defense
representatives involved in family notifications regarding
casualties have the qualifications and experience to provide
meaningful information on accident investigations and
effective grief counseling.
(5) Military families deserve the best possible care,
attention, and information, especially at a time of tragic
personal loss.
(6) Although the Department of Defense provides much needed
logistical support, including transportation and care of
remains, survivor counseling, and other benefits in cases of
tragedies like the crash of the C-130 aircraft on November
22, 1996, the support may be insufficient to meet the
immediate emotional and personal needs of family members
affected by such tragedies.
(7) It is important that the flow of information to
surviving family members be accurate and timely, and be
provided to family members in advance of media reports, and,
therefore, that the Department of Defense give a high
priority, to the extent practicable, to providing the family
members with all relevant information on an accident as soon
as it becomes available, consistent with the national
security interests of the United States, and to allowing the
family members full access to any public hearings or public
meetings about the accident.
(8) Improved procedures for civilian family notification
that have been adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration
and National Transportation Safety Board might serve as a
useful model for reforms to Department of Defense procedures.
(b) Reports by Secretary of Defense.--(1) Not later than
December 1, 1997, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report on the advisability of establishing a
process for conducting a single, public investigation of each
Department of Defense aviation accident that is similar to
the accident investigation process of the National
Transportation Safety Board. The report shall include--
(A) a discussion of whether adoption of the accident
investigation process of the National Transportation Safety
Board by the Department of Defense would result in benefits
that include the satisfaction of needs of members of families
of victims of the accident, increased aviation safety, and
improved maintenance of aircraft;
(B) a determination of whether the Department of Defense
should adopt that accident investigation process; and
(C) any justification for the current practice of the
Department of Defense of conducting separate accident and
safety investigations.
(2) Not later than April 2, 1998, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report on assistance provided by
the Department of Defense to families of casualties among
Armed Forces and civilian personnel of the department. The
report shall include--
(A) a discussion of the adequacy and effectiveness of the
family notification procedures of the Department of Defense,
including the procedures of the military departments; and
(B) a description of the assistance provided to members of
the families of such personnel.
(c) Report by Department of Defense Inspector General.--(1)
Not later than December 1, 1997, the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense shall review the procedures of the
Federal Aviation Administration and the National
Transportation Safety Board for providing information and
assistance to members of families of casualties of
nonmilitary aviation accidents, and submit a report on the
review to Congress. The report shall include a discussion of
the following matters:
(A) Designation of an experienced non-profit organization
to provide assistance for satisfying needs of families of
accident victims.
(B) An assessment of the system and procedures for
providing families with information on accidents and accident
investigations.
(C) Protection of members of families from unwanted
solicitations relating to the accident.
(D) A recommendation regarding whether the procedures or
similar procedures should be adopted by the Department of
Defense, and if the recommendation is not to adopt the
procedures, a detailed justification for the recommendation.
(d) Unclassified Form of Reports.--The reports under
subsections (b) and (c) shall be submitted in unclassified
form.
amendment no. 598, as modified
(Purpose: To add a subtitle relating to Persian Gulf war illnesses)
On page 226, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
Subtitle B--Persian Gulf Illnesses
SEC. 721. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle:
(1) The term ``Gulf War illness'' means any one of the
complex of illnesses and symptoms that might have been
contracted by members of the Armed Forces as a result of
service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during
the Persian Gulf War.
(2) The term ``Persian Gulf War'' has the meaning given
that term in section 101 of title 38, United States Code.
(3) The term ``Persian Gulf veteran'' means an individual
who served on active duty in the Armed Forces in the
Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf
War.
(4) The term ``contingency operation'' has the meaning
given that term in section 101(a) of title 10, United States
Code, and includes a humanitarian operation, peacekeeping
operation, or similar operation.
SEC. 722. PLAN FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR PERSIAN GULF
VETERANS.
(a) Plan Required.--The Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, acting jointly, shall prepare
a plan to provide appropriate health care to Persian Gulf
veterans (and their dependents) who suffer from a Gulf War
illness.
(b) Content of Plan.--In preparing the plan, the
Secretaries shall--
(1) use the presumptions of service connection and illness
specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 721(d) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(Public Law 103-337; 10 U.S.C. 1074 note) to determine the
Persian Gulf veterans (and the dependents of Persian Gulf
veterans) who should be covered by the plan;
(2) consider the need and methods available to provide
health care services to Persian Gulf veterans who are no
longer on active duty in the Armed Forces, such as Persian
Gulf veterans who are members of the
[[Page S7263]]
reserve components and Persian Gulf veterans who have been
separated from the Armed Forces; and
(3) estimate the costs to the Government of providing full
or partial health care services under the plan to covered
Persian Gulf veterans (and their covered dependents).
(c) Followup Treatment.--The plan required by subsection
(a) shall specifically address the measures to be used to
monitor the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of,
and patient satisfaction with, health care services provided
to Persian Gulf veterans after their initial medical
examination as part of registration in the Persian Gulf War
Veterans Health Registry or the Comprehensive Clinical
Evaluation Program.
(d) Submission of Plan.--Not later than March 1, 1998, the
Secretaries shall submit to Congress the plan required by
subsection (a).
SEC. 724. IMPROVED MEDICAL TRACKING SYSTEM FOR MEMBERS
DEPLOYED OVERSEAS IN CONTINGENCY OR COMBAT
OPERATIONS.
(a) System Required.--Chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1074d the
following new section:
``Sec. 1074e. Medical tracking system for members deployed
overseas
``(a) System Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall
establish a system to assess the medical condition of members
of the armed forces (including members of the reserve
components) who are deployed outside the United States or its
territories or possessions as part of a contingency operation
(including a humanitarian operation, peacekeeping operation,
or similar operation) or combat operation.
``(b) Elements of System.--The system shall include the use
of predeployment medical examinations and postdeployment
medical examinations (including an assessment of mental
health and the drawing of blood samples) to accurately record
the medical condition of members before their deployment and
any changes in their medical condition during the course of
their deployment. The postdeployment examination shall be
conducted when the member is redeployed or otherwise leaves
an area in which the system is in operation (or as soon as
possible thereafter).
``(c) Recordkeeping.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress not later than March 15, * * * a plan to ensure
that the results of all medical examinations conducted under
the system, records of all health care services (including
immunizations) received by members described in subsection
(a) in anticipation of their deployment or during the course
of their deployment, and records of events occurring in the
deployment area that may affect the health of such members
shall be retained and maintained in a centralized location or
locations to improve future access to the records. The report
shall include a schedule for implementation of the plan
within 2 years of enactment.
``(d) Quality Assurance.--The Secretary of Defense shall
establish a quality assurance program to evaluate the success
of the system in ensuring that members described in
subsection (a) receive predeployment medical examinations and
postdeployment medical examinations and that the
recordkeeping requirements are met.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 1074d the following new item:
``1074e. Medical tracking system for members deployed overseas.''.
SEC. 725. REPORT ON PLANS TO TRACK LOCATION OF MEMBERS IN A
THEATER OF OPERATIONS.
Not later than March 1, 1998, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report containing a plan for
collecting and maintaining information regarding the daily
location of units of the Armed Forces, and to the extent
practicable individual members of such units, serving in a
theater of operations during a contingency operation or
combat operation.
SEC. 726. REPORT ON PLANS TO IMPROVE DETECTION AND MONITORING
OF CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
HAZARDS IN A THEATER OF OPERATIONS.
Not later than March 1, 1998, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report containing a plan regarding
the deployment, in a theater of operations during a
contingency operation or combat operation, of a specialized
unit of the Armed Forces with the capability and expertise to
detect and monitor the presence of chemical hazards,
biological hazards, and environmental hazards to which
members of the Armed Forces may be exposed.
SEC. 727. NOTICE OF USE OF DRUGS UNAPPROVED FOR THEIR
INTENDED USAGE.
(a) Notice Requirements.--Chapter 55 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``Sec. 1107. Notice of use of investigational new drugs
``(a) Notice Required.--(1) Whenever the Secretary of
Defense requests or requires a member of the armed forces to
receive a drug unapproved for its intended use, the Secretary
shall provide the member with notice containing the
information specified in subsection (d).
``(2) The Secretary shall also ensure that medical care
providers who administer a drug unapproved for its intended
use or who are likely to treat members who receive such a
drug receive the information required to be provided under
paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (d).
``(b) Time for Notice.--The notice required to be provided
to a member under subsection (a)(1) shall be provided before
the drug is first administered to the member, if practicable,
but in no case later than 30 days after the drug is first
administered to the member.
``(c) Form of Notice.--The notice required under subsection
(a)(1) shall be provided in writing unless the Secretary of
Defense determines that the use of written notice is
impractical because of the number of members receiving the
unapproved drug, time constraints, or similar reasons. If the
Secretary provides notice under subsection (a)(1) in a form
other than in writing, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the notification method used and the
reasons for the use of the alternative method.
``(d) Content of Notice.--The notice required under
subsection (a)(1) shall include the following:
``(1) Clear notice that the drug being administered has not
been approved for its intended usage.
``(2) The reasons why the unapproved drug is being
administered.
``(3) Information regarding the possible side effects of
the unapproved drug, including any known side effects
possible as a result of the interaction of the drug with
other drugs or treatments being administered to the members
receiving the drug.
``(4) Such other information that, as a condition for
authorizing the use of the unapproved drug, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services may require to be disclosed.
``(e) Records of Use.--The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure that the medical records of members accurately
document the receipt by members of any investigational new
drug and the notice required by subsection (d).
``(f) Definition.--In this section, the term
`investigational new drug' means a drug covered by section
505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
355(i)).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``1107. Notice of use of drugs unapproved for their intended usage.''.
SEC. 728. REPORT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF RESEARCH EFFORTS
REGARDING GULF WAR ILLNESSES.
Not later than March 1, 1998, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report evaluating the
effectiveness of medical research initiatives regarding Gulf
War illnesses. The report shall address the following:
(1) The type and effectiveness of previous research
efforts, including the activities undertaken pursuant to
section 743 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 10 U.S.C. 1074 note),
section 722 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 10 U.S.C. 1074 note),
and sections 270 and 271 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160;
107 Stat. 1613).
(2) Recommendations regarding additional research regarding
Gulf War illnesses, including research regarding the nature
and causes of Gulf War illnesses and appropriate treatments
for such illnesses.
(3) The adequacy of Federal funding and the need for
additional funding for medical research initiatives regarding
Gulf War illnesses.
SEC. 729. PERSIAN GULF ILLNESS CLINICAL TRIALS PROGRAM.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) There are many ongoing studies that investigate risk
factors which may be associated with the health problems
experienced by Persian Gulf veterans; however, there have
been no studies that examine health outcomes and the
effectiveness of the treatment received by such veterans.
(2) The medical literature and testimony presented in
hearings on Gulf War illnesses indicate that there are
therapies, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, that have
been effective in treating patients with symptoms similar to
those seen in many Persian Gulf veterans.
(b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, acting jointly, shall
establish a program of cooperative clinical trials at
multiple sites to assess the effectiveness of protocols for
treating Persian Gulf veterans who suffer from ill-defined or
undiagnosed conditions. Such protocols shall include a
multidisciplinary treatment model, of which cognitive
behavioral therapy is a component.
(c) Funding.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated
in section 201(1), the sum of $4,500,000 shall be available
for program element 62787A (medical technology) in the budget
of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1998 to carry
out the clinical trials program established pursuant to
subsection (b).
On page 217, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
Subtitle A--General Matters
amendment no. 626
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:
SEC. . LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--Subject to the provisions of
this section and notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary
of the
[[Page S7264]]
Army shall convey, without consideration, by fee simple
absolute deed to Harnett County, North Carolina, all right,
title, and interest of the United States of America in and to
two parcels of land containing a total of 300 acres, more or
less, located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, together with
any improvements thereon, for educational and economic
development purposes.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--The conveyance by the United
States under this section shall be subject to the following
conditions to protect the interests of the United States,
including:
(1) the County shall pay all costs associated with the
conveyance, authorized by this section, including but not
limited to environmental analysis and documentation, survey
costs and recording fees, and
(2) not withstanding the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.); the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) or any other law, the
County, and not the United States, shall be responsible for
any environmental restoration or remediation required on the
property conveyed and the United States shall be forever
released and held harmless from any obligation to conduct
such restoration or remediation and any claims or causes of
action stemming from such remediation.
(c) Legal Description of Real Property and Payment of
Costs.--The exact acreage and legal description of the real
property described in subsection (a) shall be determined by a
survey, the costs of which the County shall bear.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this amendment will help address the
critical educational needs of the children of the fine soldiers and
airmen serving at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina.
Across America, many communities surrounding major military
installations are at a great disadvantage by having large numbers of
military-connected schoolchildren, yet they receive nowhere near
adequate impact aid. Harnett County in North Carolina is one of them.
Harnett County is a relatively rural, agricultural county; that has
experienced tremendous growth in its military-connected student
population during the last decade.
Many soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, and airmen assigned to Pope
Air Force Base, have found a home in Harnett County because of its
peaceful quality of life, its proximity to the bases and many other
desirable aspects. According to one housing developer, 98 percent of
the families buying in his community are military families. Harnett
County has welcomed these newcomers but, in so doing, has struggled for
the past several years to provide the basic services required to
accommodate this burgeoning population.
Mr. President, Harnett County's schools have been especially impacted
by this influx of military dependents. Recent years have seen thousands
of students added to the rolls of Harnett County's school system. This
growth has resulted in severe overcrowding in Harnett County schools.
Many children have been forced to attend classes in temporary
facilities, such as cafeterias, gymnasiums, auditorium stages,
libraries, and trailers. In some schools, students must wait in line up
to an hour even to use the bathroom.
Mr. President, projections indicate that Harnett County taxpayers
will have to spend $87,000,000 for new schools within the next decade
merely to keep up with this growth. As a rural county, Harnett has
little industry or commercial development that can be used to generate
significant tax dollars for school construction. The county simply does
not have nearly enough resources to build more schools to serve these
military dependents without substantial assistance.
The Federal Government has an obvious obligation to provide for the
education of military dependents. Because of the nature of military
service which requires frequent moves and reassignments, military
families seldom have an opportunity to establish strong roots in a
community or to become active in local schools. The Federal Government
has a duty to ensure that these parents, who are prepared to risk their
lives and go to war in 18 hours to serve our country, need not worry
about the quality of education afforded their children.
For almost 50 years, Federal law has addressed the costs incurred by
local communities in the education of military dependents through the
payment of impact aid. These payments are designed to alleviate local
government's inability to raise revenue for schools in the customary
manner of raising property taxes since they are constitutionally
prohibited from taxing installation property. These payments are not
intended to benefit the local governments, but are intended to insure
that service-members' children are not treated as second-class citizens
and thereby disadvantaged by their parents' devotion to their country.
Nevertheless, the responsibility for making these payments has been
removed from the Department of Defense and placed upon the Department
of Education over the years. In so doing, the Federal Government has
steadily reduced its payments to local educational agencies that serve
these children. Despite rhetoric in support of education to the
contrary, the President's own budget punishes these children by
proposing a reduction of $72 million or 10 percent below the fiscal
year 1997 level. I have always believed that the Federal Government has
a limited role in education, but clearly, it has a role when its
actions place a direct negative economic impact upon a community, such
as Harnett County.
Some may argue that we owe no obligation to communities surrounding
military bases. They may say that because communities now compete to
retain military bases that our duties are mitigated. Our duty is owed
to the service member, not the community. Besides, every community
surrounding a military installation does not share equally in the
economic benefit of having the installation closeby. For example,
Harnett is the only county in the Fort Bragg impact area that suffers
an economic loss due to its being adjacent to Fort Bragg. According to
the latest statistics, Harnett County loses at least $122,000 per year
because of Fort Bragg.
Adding to the education funding crisis, Fort Bragg purchased an
additional 7,000 acres in the county last year. That purchase nearly
doubled the amount of land the Federal Government owns in Harnett. This
purchase caused Harnett County to permanently lose an additional
$24,000 in annual tax revenues. The projected fiscal year 1997 impact
aid payment to Harnett County is only $37,712. Compare that to the
$278,177 that the county would receive if impact aid basic support
payments were fully funded.
During the past few years, I have worked closely with concerned
Harnett County leaders, including the school board and county
commissioners, Army officials at Fort Bragg and here at the Pentagon,
literally spending hundreds of hours working to try to address these
critical Army needs. If I may quote from a March 9, 1995, letter by
then Fort Bragg commanding general, Lt. Gen. Henry Shelton to Secretary
of the Army Togo West:
I sympathize with counties that have to educate our
children, especially those, like Harnett County, that have
recently experienced a substantial increase in the number of
students from military families. I am concerned that the U.S.
Department of Education is providing less impact aid for some
military family members than for others, and that this
disparity in impact aid might adversely affect the quality of
education that some of our military family members are
receiving. We should be providing the same high level of
assistance for every child. Education is a key component of
quality of life. For this reason, we should make every effort
to ensure that all of our military family members receive a
quality education regardless of where they live.
General Shelton, of whom I am extremely proud, is now a four-star
general in charge of the military's special operations command, went on
to say to Secretary West ``[my staff] offered to assist Harnett County
* * * [and] discussed the possibility of conveying to Harnett County
parcels of land for the construction of schools.''
General Shelton's commitment to the well-being of his troops has been
continued by his successor as commanding general, Lt. Gen. John Keane,
who is and has been working closely with civilian leaders such as Mike
Walker, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics
and Environment. They have determined that two outparcels that the Army
owns are not required for future Army use. Mr. President, as a result
of this decision, both General Keane and Secretary Walker sent letters
to me a day or so ago, supporting the conveyance of two small parcels
of land to Harnett county for educational and economic development
purposes. I ask unanimous consent that these two letters dated July 9,
1997, be printed in the
[[Page S7265]]
Record at this point, following which I shall continue my remarks.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Department of the Army,
Fort Bragg, NC, July 9, 1997.
Hon. Jesse A. Helms,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Helms: This letter details my recollection of
the discussions I and other Army representatives had with you
leading up to the Army's recent acquisition of the former
Rockefeller property commonly known as ``Overhills.''
It was discussed that, along with the main property of
approximately 11,000 acres vitally needed by Fort Bragg for
military training, there were also two noncontiguous
outparcels totaling about 300 acres. These outparcels were of
limited training value due to their small size and location,
each surrounded by private property. I do not believe their
inclusion in the purchase materially affected the overall
cost of Overhills. Rockefeller representatives simply wanted
to sell all the property together to one buyer.
In the discussions, there was also agreement to support any
subsequent legislation intended to declare the outparcels
excess property and transfer them to the county in which they
are located. I continue to support such a transfer.
Sincerely,
John M. Keane,
Lieutenant General,
U.S. Army, Commanding Officer.
____
Department of the Army,
Office of the Assistant Secretary,
Washington, DC, July 9, 1997.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Helms: As you know, the Army recently acquired
approximately 11,000 acres in order to help alleviate the
overall shortfall in training lands at Fort Bragg. The
property included two outparcels of land (Tract No. 404-1,
containing approximately 137 acres, and Tract No. 402-2,
containing approximately 157 acres), noncontiguous to the
installation and noncontiguous to each other. The Army has
determined that these properties will not be used for
training or other purposes due to their size, configuration,
and location. These parcels did not contribute significantly
to acquisition costs and are not required for future Army
use.
I hope this information is helpful for your purposes.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Walker,
Assistant Secretary of the Army, (Installations,
Logistics & Environment).
Mr. HELMS. The map shows that neither of these small parcels of land
is contiguous to the primary training areas at Fort Bragg--known as the
Northern Training Area and Overhills property; they are also
noncontiguous to each other. These properties are open farmland,
surrounded by private property, without the foliage and terrain that
Army units stationed at Fort Bragg require for operational training.
Mr. President, local leaders and Army officials had planned for the
Army to provide a long-term lease for the construction of three
schools--an elementary school, a junior high school, and a high school
on land lying along N.C. 87 which crosses the recently acquired
Overhills property. Over the last several months, they mutually agreed
to forego that arrangement because of concerns that placement of
schools in that area would impose restrictions on training and
negatively impact the habitat of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Together,
they agreed that the ideal location for these new schools was on the
open tracts the Army had previously identified as being available for
conveyance to the county.
Last year, North Carolina voters approved a bond referendum for the
construction of new schools. I am told that to use those funds, the
county must own the land. Therefore, a long-term lease by the Army on
these parcels would not be useful to the county or the Army. It is
critical that parcel No. 404-2 be transferred now since Harnett County
plans to break ground on construction later this year in an attempt to
finally catch-up with the increasing demand for education imposed by
the children of military personnel. This amendment further authorizes
the Secretary of the Army to sell parcel No. 404-1 at fair market
value.
Mr. President, North Carolinians are proud of the several great
military installations within our borders. For more than 50 years,
North Carolinians have been especially proud of Fort Bragg, home of the
U.S. Army's elite XVIII Airborne Corps, the 82d Airborne Division, and
our Special Operations Forces. These units and other units stationed at
Fort Bragg are on the front line of our Nation's defense; standing
ready to deploy anywhere, any time, to preserve freedom in the world.
Just 2 days ago, we were reminded once again about the price of
liberty. Eight soldiers at Fort Bragg were tragically lost when their
Blackhawk helicopter crashed. The victims have been identified and
their families notified but the cause of the crash is still being
investigated.
Those who have served in the military understand the sense of family
and community that exists among those, particularly those who have
volunteered to put themselves in harm's way, for the benefit of their
fellow-citizens. These courageous and selfless Americans use the
instruments of war to secure our peace and prosperity. Each of these
brave Americans experiences a feeling of loss when one of their own is
lost. The North Carolinians who live around Fort Bragg share that sense
of loss. Those citizens and the Fort Bragg family have embraced the
families of the lost soldiers and are doing all they can to comfort
them at this tragic time.
I spent four nonheroic years in the Navy during World War II. I have
always had great affection and respect for the soldiers and defense
support personnel who devote their lives to the defense of our country.
I will do anything in my power to ensure that they are provided
everything they need to do their jobs.
This includes not merely providing an adequate training area,
equipment and hardware; but also the quality of life and peace of mind
to enable each soldier to focus on his mission, accomplish it, and
return home safely. Unmistakably essential to that quality of life is
the proper education of their children.
Listen again to the words of General Shelton, ``[e]ducation is a key
component of quality of life. For this reason, we should make every
effort to ensure that all of our military family members receive a
quality education regardless of where they live.''
Mr. President, a vote against this amendment is a vote against the
Army's senior civilian and military leaders charged with responsibility
for the readiness and well-being of these fine men and women at Fort
Bragg.
A vote against this amendment is a vote against their children who
depend upon us to help educate them so that they too can serve their
country when they grow to adulthood.
Mr. President, I do hope Senators will support this amendment which
takes a small step toward addressing the educational needs of the
children of our Nation's finest soldiers. It's the right thing to do
and I am confident that Senators will agree.
AMENDMENT NO. 628
(Purpose: To require a report on options for the disposal of chemical
weapons and agents)
At an appropriate place in title III, insert the following:
SEC. . REPORT ON OPTIONS FOR THE DISPOSAL OF CHEMICAL
WEAPONS AND AGENTS.
(a) Requirement.--Not later than March 15, 1998, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the
options available to the Department of Defense for the
disposal of chemical weapons and agents in order to
facilitate the disposal of such weapons and agents without
the construction of additional chemical weapons disposal
facilities in the continental United States.
(b) Elements.--The report shall include the following:
(1) a description of each option evaluated;
(2) an assessment of the lifecycle costs and risks
associated with each option evaluated;
(3) a statement of any technical, regulatory, or other
requirements or obstacles with respect to each option,
including with respect to any transportation of weapons or
agents that is required for the option;
(4) an assessment of incentives required for sites to
accept munitions or agents from outside their own locales, as
well as incentives to enable transportation of these items
across state lines;
(5) an assessment of the cost savings that could be
achieved through either the application of uniform federal
transportation or safety requirements and any other
initiatives consistent with the transportation and safe
disposal of stockpile and nonstockpile chemical weapons and
agents; and
(6) proposed legislative language necessary to implement
options determined by the Secretary to be worthy of
consideration by the Congress.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 638
(Purpose: To authorize appropriations for the Greenville Road
Improvement Project, Livermore, CA)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
``Of the funds authorized to be
[[Page S7266]]
appropriated by this Act to the Department of Energy,
$3,500,000 are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
1998, and $3,800,000 are authorized to be appropriated for
fiscal year 1999, for improvements to Greenville Road in
Livermore, California''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 659
(Purpose: To provide for funding of the NATO Joint Surveillance/Target
Attack Radar System)
At the end of subtitle E of title I, add the following:
SEC. 144. NATO JOINT SURVEILLANCE/TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM.
(a) Funding.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated under
this title and title II are available for a NATO alliance
ground surveillance capability that is based on the Joint
Surveillance/Target Attack Radar System of the United States,
as follows:
(1) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 101(5), $26,153,000.
(2) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 103(1), $10,000,000.
(3) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 201(1), $13,500,000.
(4) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 201(3), $26,061,000.
(b) Authority.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
of Defense may utilize authority under section 2350b of title
10, United States Code, for contracting for the purposes of
Phase I of a NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance capability
that is based on the Joint Surveillance/Target Attack Radar
System of the United States, notwithstanding the condition in
such section that the authority be utilized for carrying out
contracts or obligations incurred under section 27(d) of the
Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2767(d)).
(2) The authority under paragraph (1) applies during the
period that the conclusion of a cooperative project agreement
for a NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance capability under
section 27(d) of the Arms Export control Act is pending, as
determined by the Secretary of Defense.
(c) Modification of Air Force Aircraft.--Amounts available
pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (4) of subsection (a) may be
used to provide for modifying two Air Force Joint
Surveillance/Target Attack Radar System production aircraft
to have a NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance capability that
is based on the Joint Surveillance/Target Attack Radar System
of the United States.
____
amendment no. 669, as modified
(Purpose: To provide $500,000 for the bioassay testing of veterans
exposed to ionizing radiation during military service)
On page 46, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 220. BIOASSAY TESTING OF VETERANS EXPOSED TO IONIZING
RADIATION DURING MILITARY SERVICE.
(a) Nuclear Test Personnel Program.--Of the amount provided
in section 201(4), $300,000 shall be available for testing
described in subsection (b) in support of the Nuclear Test
Personnel Program conducted by the Defense Special Weapons
Agency.
(b) Covered Testing.--Subsection (a) applies to the third
phase of bioassay testing of individuals who are radiation-
exposed veterans (as defined in section 1112(c)(3) of title
38, United States Code) who participated in radiation-risk
activities (as defined in such paragraph).
(c) Collection of Samples.--The appropriate department or
agency shall collect the required bioassay samples, at the
request of a veteran who participated in the U.S. atmospheric
nuclear testing or the occupation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
Japan, and forward them to Brookhaven National Laboratory,
under the appropriate Chair of custody.
____
amendment no. 671, as modified
(Purpose: To require a study concerning the provision of certain
comparative information to TRICARE beneficiaries)
At the appropriate place, insert the following;
SEC. . STUDY CONCERNING THE PROVISION OF COMPARATIVE
INFORMATION.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study
concerning the provision of the information described in
subsection (b) to beneficiaries under the TRICARE program
established under the authority of chapter 55 of title 10,
United States Code, and prepare and submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report concerning such study.
(b) Provision of Comparative Information.--Information
described in this subsection, with respect to a managed care
entity that contracts with the Secretary of Defense to
provide medical assistance under the program described in
subsection (a), shall include the following:
(1) Benefits.--The benefits covered by the entity involved,
including--
(A) covered items and services beyond those provided under
a traditional fee-for-service program;
(B) any beneficiary cost sharing; and
(C) any maximum limitations on out-of-pocket expenses.
(2) Premiums.--The net monthly premium, if any, under the
entity.
(3) Service area.--The service area of the entity.
(4) Quality and performance.--To the extent available,
quality and performance indicators for the benefits under the
entity (and how they compare to such indicators under the
traditional fee-for-service programs in the area involved),
including--
(A) disenrollment rates for enrollees electing to receive
benefits through the entity for the previous 2 years
(excluding disenrollment due to death or moving outside the
service area of the entity);
(B) information on enrollee satisfaction;
(C) information on health process and outcomes;
(D) grievance procedures;
(E) the extent to which an enrollee may select the health
care provider of their choice, including health care
providers within the network of the entity and out-of-network
health care providers (if the entity covers out-of-network
items and services); and
(F) an indication of enrollee exposure to balance billing
and the restrictions on coverage of items and services
provided to such enrollee by an out-of-network health care
provider.
(5) Supplemental benefits options.--Whether the entity
offers optional supplemental benefits and the terms and
conditions (including premiums) for such coverage.
(6) Physician compensation.--An overall summary description
as to the method of compensation of participating physicians.
____
amendment no. 681
Add at the appropriate point in the bill the following:
SEC. . AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CONCERNING
DISPOSAL OF ASSETS UNDER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
ON AIR DEFENSE IN CENTRAL EUROPE.
(a) General Authorities.--The Secretary of Defense,
pursuant to an amendment or amendments to the European air
defense agreements, may dispose of any defense articles owned
by the United States and acquired to carry out such
agreements by providing such articles to the Federal Republic
of Germany. In carrying out such disposal, the Secretary--
(1) may provide without monetary charge to the Federal
Republic of Germany articles specified in the agreements; and
(2) may accept from the Federal Republic of Germany (in
exchange for the articles provided under paragraph (1))
articles, services, or any other consideration, as determined
appropriate by the Secretary.
(b) Definition of European Air Defense Agreement.--For the
purposes of this section, the term ``European air defense
agreements'' means
(1) the agreement entitled ``Agreement between the
Secretary of Defense of the United States of America and the
Minister of Defense of the United States of America and the
Minister of Defense of the Federal Republic of Germany on
Cooperative Measures for Enhancing Air Defense for Central
Europe'', signed on December 6, 1983; and
(2) the agreement entitled ``Agreement between the
Secretary of Defense of the United States of America and the
Minister of Defense of the Federal Republic of Germany in
implementation of the 6 December 1983 Agreement on
Cooperative Measures for Enhancing Air Defense for Central
Europe'', signed on July 12, 1984.
____
amendment no. 707
(Purpose: To designate the Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge as the National
Prototype Center)
At the appropriate place, insert:
SEC. . DESIGNATING THE Y-12 PLANT IN OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE
AS THE NATIONAL PROTOTYPE CENTER.
The Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee is designated as the
National Prototype Center. Other executive agencies are
encouraged to utilize this center, where appropriate, to
maximize their efficiency and cost effectiveness.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, Senator Strom Thurmond, and the other members
of the committee for supporting my amendment, which will designate the
Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge, TN as a ``National Prototype Center.''
Mr. President, for the first time in nearly half a century, the
United States is neither designing nor producing any new nuclear
weapons. The size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile is shrinking, and the
size of the nuclear weapons complex is shrinking along with it. That is
appropriate.
However, as we reduce the physical size of our nuclear weapons
complex, we must not allow the unique experience and expertise that
have developed at the nuclear weapons production plants to simply
disappear. Instead, we should use these unique resources to further
enhance our national security and economic competitiveness.
The Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge has played a critical role in our nuclear
weapons complex since 1943. Every weapon in the current U.S. nuclear
stockpile contains some part that was manufactured at Y-12. In the
course of fulfilling this critical mission, Y-12 and its workforce have
developed applied manufacturing expertise that is unsurpassed anywhere
in this country. This makes Y-12 perfectly suited to become a National
Prototype Center.
[[Page S7267]]
Prototypes provide the first concrete test of a product after the
initial research and development have been performed. Businesses and
the military use prototyping to test their designs and to anticipate
and prevent problems later in the production cycle.
However, circumstances in the 1990's have made prototyping more
difficult for both the military and industry. The threats facing our
military today are fundamentally different from those we faced during
the Cold War, and the defense budget has shrunk as well. This means
that the military must now produce defense systems in relatively small
volumes--sometimes as small as one. Commercial industries are facing
some of the same challenges, as they strive to produce smaller numbers
of more customized products. These trends have made prototyping even
more important, but they have also made it prohibitively expensive in
many cases.
I believe that we will benefit as a nation if we find a way to
preserve these important prototyping capabilities, and I believe the
solution lies with Y-12. Y-12 has already helped to develop numerous
prototypes for the Department of Defense, NASA, and others, from
components for the Seawolf submarine's propulsion system to a new and
more advanced type of pencil lead. Designating Y-12 as a National
Prototype Center will highlight Y-12's ability to rapidly transform
complex hardware designs into precision prototypes through the use of
advanced manufacturing techniques. It will also allow customers to take
advantage of the resources of a world-class national laboratory--the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory--which is located in close proximity to
the Y-12 plant.
Mr. President, this National Prototype Center will not only enhance
our national security by preserving vital weapons manufacturing
expertise, it will also enhance our economic security by helping to
solve tough problems for U.S. industries so that they can get their
products to the global marketplace more quickly. And it will be cost-
effective.
The American taxpayers have already invested billions of dollars in
the equipment and expertise that reside at Y-12. It makes little sense
for that investment to be duplicated by other Federal agencies or U.S.
industries. At a time when cost control is a major consideration in
developing new weapons systems and commercial products, it makes sense
instead for others to take advantage of existing state-of-the-art
facilities at Y-12. My amendment would allow them to do just that, and
I thank my colleagues for supporting it.
AMENDMENT NO. 714, AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to conduct an explosive
munitions demilitarization demonstration program)
At the end of subtitle D of title II, add the following:
SEC. 235 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON EXPLOSIVES DEMILITARIZATION
TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Program Required.--During fiscal year 1998, the
Secretary of Defense may conduct an alternative technology
explosive munitions demilitarization demonstration program in
accordance with this section.
(b) Commercial Blast Chamber Technology.--Under the
demonstration program, the Secretary shall demonstrate the
use of existing, commercially available blast chamber
technology for incineration of explosive munitions as an
alternative to the open burning, open pit detonation of such
munitions.
(c) The Secretary shall use competitive procedures in
selecting participants for the demonstration program
described in subsection (b). In addition the Secretary shall
include a cost benefit analysis of this technology generally
for explosives munitions destruction.
(d) Assessment.--The Secretary shall assess the relative
benefits of the blast chamber technology and the open
burning, open pit detonation process with respect to the
levels of emissions and noise resulting from use of the
respective processes.
(e) Report.--Not later than the date on which the President
submits the budget for fiscal year 2000 to Congress pursuant
to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit a report on the results of
the demonstration program to the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives. The report shall include the
Secretary's assessment under subsection (c).
(e) Funding.--(1) Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated under section 201(4), $6,000,000 is available
for the demonstration program under this section.
(2) The amount provided under section 201(4) is hereby
increased by $6,000,000 for the explosives demilitization
technology program (PE 63104D).
(3) The amount provided under section 101(5) for special
equipment for user testing is hereby decreased by $6,000,000.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President this amendment would authorize an
increase of $6 million to the budget request for the Explosive
Demilitarization Technology program (PE 63104D) to conduct a
demonstration program at Anniston Army Depot. This is a much needed
demonstration of current commercial off-the shelf blast chamber
technology as an acceptable alternative to open burning/open pit
detonation (OB/OD) by reducing significantly emissions and noise caused
by OB/OD. The demonstration has nation-wide application if successful
and is in keeping with the military's program of continuing technology
evaluation of demilitarization methods for existing conventional
ammunition as described in the Joint Demilitarization Study, September
1995, page II-4-14, a study prepared for the Director, Environmental
and Life Sciences, Defense Research and Engineering, Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
Mr. President annually we spend millions of dollars on the production
of new munitions of all types. At the other end of the pipeline however
is the vexing problem of disposing of outdated munitions of all types.
The enormity of the problem for this Nation is this: The stocks managed
by the Army, DOD's Manager for Conventional Ammunition (MCA), currently
stored in 26 States totals approximately 449,308 tons of material and
costs over $12 million annually to store according to a DOD 1995 Joint
Demilitarization Study. More serious however is the fact that the study
predicts an additional 730,420 tons will be generated into that
stockpile by the end of fiscal year 2001.
Let me state again the magnitude of the problem for the Nation:
through the end of fiscal year 2001, over 1.2 million tons of material
will pass through or reside in the military conventional ammunition
account. This is enough ammunition to exceed 2800 earth covered
magazines and will cost over $1.2 billion to destroy if we assume that
it costs approximately $120 million to destroy 107,000 tons of material
using fiscal year 1995 projections. The technology in the COTS blast
chamber has the potential of mitigating local environmental concerns;
the potential of increasing destruction throughput; and is capable of
destroying in a safe and environmentally sound manner greater than 98
percent of the explosives the DOD stores utilizing particular bag house
technology at locations in America, Europe, and the Pacific.
Alabama stores in excess of 22,437 tons of material ranking us fifth
in size of stockpile. Environmental considerations are of paramount
importance to me and to a balanced national level demilitarized
program. I think DOD, the Army, and the Joint Ordnance Commanders
Group, Demilitarization and Disposal Subgroup, are playing a major role
in ensuring that our various storage sites, to include Anniston Army
Depot, are in compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations.
Likewise, I think the DOD is also quite sensitive to public opinion.
While better cost-efficient ways must be found to destroy this
increasing amount of material, we must take advantage now of new
technologies in the R&D stage to compliment the current OB/OD method of
destruction, with the view that not in the too distant future those
technologies will not only replace aging organic demilitarization
facilities, but close the chapter on the risky OB/OD method before the
environmental challenges close the book for us.
The JOCG cited three environmental challenges in a study to be
considered in life cycle management of the demilitarization program.
They are: permitting facilities; disposal of residuals; and, cleanup.
With new technologies the effects of each can be mitigated and give
local communities new hope that their environment will no longer be
fouled by OB/OD.
Mr. President, on June 19 Anniston Army Depot received permission
from the State of Alabama to proceed with the construction of its
chemical weapons disposal facility. This is an emotionally charged
issue, but one we are assured will be managed every step of the way
with safety of the operation and concern for the community as its
[[Page S7268]]
highest priorities. Previous plants in our country are proving that
this can be done. However, conventional ammunition destruction lags
behind, in my opinion, on both counts. For this reason I strongly
believe that a demonstration program at Anniston involving COTS blast
chamber technology begins the long awaited opportunity to rid North
Alabama of another type of munition material, that only grows more
unstable with time and will furnish the date upon which the JOCG can
make full-scale development decision for other locations in the
country.
Today, TOW missiles rounds, currently in storage, are experiencing
storage problems and must be dealt with as a higher destruction
priority over older missiles. Storage quantities for TOW missiles
reaches nearly 400,000 rounds. I cannot conceive that OB/O, in Alabama
or anywhere else in the Nation, is the most efficient and most
responsible method of destruction for these missiles. Other
methodologies must be utilized and they must be demonstrated now.
Mr. President, the COTS blast chamber I am recommending for this
demonstration program is totally enclosed, constructed of steel and
consists of a hydraulic chamber door, exhaust fan and over-pressure
controls. The chamber is large enough to accommodate the TOW missiles I
described. Noise measurements of 0.5 percent of what is allowable by
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration are cited by the
manufacturer. Emission controls for exhaust rates and temperatures are
also controlled. The chamber will work with Anniston's current Subpart
X permits, and according to the manufacturer the blast chamber is 80
percent cleaner than OB/OD. These are pluses for any community in our
country.
Mr. President, our environment will not wait; the munitions will not
wait, and the people should not have to wait for the slow wheels of
government. Let us begin moving now, by bringing this demonstration
program on line in fiscal year 1998 and see if we as a country cannot
benefit from a simple technology that can get the job done.
Amendment No. 752, as modified
(Purpose: To provide for the assignment of an officer in the grade of
O-7 or above to the position of defense attache in France)
At the end of subtitle F of title V, add the following:
SEC. 557. GRADE OF DEFENSE ATTACHE IN FRANCE.
The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff shall take actions appropriate to ensure that
each officer selected for assignment to the position of
defense attache in France is an officer who holds, or is
promotable to, the grade of brigadier general or, in the case
of the Navy, rear admiral (lower half).
____
Amendment No. 729, as modified
(Purpose: To require the concurrence of the Secretary of State for
providing Department of Defense support for counter-drug activities of
Peru and Colombia, and to limit the authority to provide such support
pending a plan for a riverine counter-drug program)
On page 276, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
(c) Concurrence of Secretary of State Required.--Subsection
(a) of such section, as amended by subsection (a), is further
amended by inserting ``, with the concurrence of the
Secretary of State.'' after ``Secretary of Defense may''.
On page 276, line 19, insert ``, with the concurrence of
the Secretary of State.'' after ``Secretary of Defense may''.
On page 278, line 20, strike out ``paragraph (2)'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``paragraph (3)''.
On page 280, line 24, strike out ``(2)'', and insert in
lieu thereof the following:
(2) The Secretary may not obligate or expend funds to
provide a government with support under this section until
the Secretary of Defense, together with the Secretary of
State, has developed a riverine counter-drug plan (including
the resources to be contributed by each such agency, and the
manner in which such resources will be utilized, under the
plan) and submitted the plan to the committees referred to in
paragraph (3). The plan shall set forth a riverine counter-
drug program that can be sustained by the supported
governments within five years, a schedule for establishing
the program, and a detailed discussion of how the riverine
counter-drug program supports national drug control strategy
of the United States.
(3) * * *
____
amendment no. 743
(Purpose: To establish and authorize the issuance of the Cold War
service medal)
At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following:
SEC. . 535. COLD WAR SERVICE MEDAL.
(a) Authority.--Chapter 57 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
Sec. 1131. Cold War service medal
``(a) Medal Required.--The Secretary concerned shall issue
the Cold War service medal to persons eligible to receive the
medal under subsection (b). The Cold War service medal shall
be of appropriate design approved by the Secretary of
Defense, with ribbons, lapel pins, and other appurtenances.
``(b) Eligible Persons.--The following persons are eligible
to receive the Cold War service medal:
``(1) A person who--
``(A) performed active duty or inactive duty training as an
enlisted member of an armed force during the Cold War;
``(B) completed the initial term of enlistment;
``(C) after the expiration of the initial term of
enlistment, reenlisted in an armed force for an additional
term or was appointed as a commissioned officer or warrant
officer in an armed force; and
``(D) has not received a discharge less favorable than an
honorable discharge or a release from active duty with a
characterization of service less favorable than honorable.
``(2) A person who--
``(A) performed active duty or inactive duty training as a
commissioned officer or warrant officer in an armed force
during the Cold War;
``(B) completed the initial service obligation as an
officer;
``(C) served in the armed forces after completing the
initial service obligation; and
``(D) has not been released from active duty with a
characterization of service less favorable than honorable and
has not received a discharge less favorable than an honorable
discharge.
``(c) One Award Authorized.--Not more than one Cold War
service medal may be issued to any one person.
``(d) Issuance to Representative of Deceased.--If a person
referred to in subsection (b) dies before being issued the
Cold War service medal, the medal may be issued to the
person's representative, as designated by the Secretary
concerned.
``(e) Replacement.--Under regulations prescribed by the
secretary concerned, a Cold War service medal that is lost,
destroyed, or rendered unfit for use without fault or neglect
on the part of the person to whom it was issued may be
replaced without charge.
``(f) Uniform Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure that regulations prescribed by the Secretaries of the
military departments under this section are uniform so far as
is practicable.
``(g) Definitions.--In this section, the term `Cold War'
means the period beginning on August 15, 1974, and
terminating at the end of December 21, 1991.''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 1131. Cold War service medal.''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 761
(Purpose: To enable the Los Alamos, New Mexico Schools to function
without annual assistance payments under the Atomic Energy Communities
Act of 1955 through alternative funding sources with additional
positive impact to areas close to Los Alamos National Laboratory)
SEC. . NORTHERN NEW MEXICO EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION.
(a) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Energy by this Act. $5,000,000 shall be
available for payment by the Secretary of Energy to a
nonprofit or not-for-profit educational foundation chartered
to enhance the educational enrichment activities in public
schools in the area around the Los Alamos National Laboratory
(in this section referred to as the ``Foundation'').
(b) Funds provided by the Department of Energy to the
Foundation shall be used solely as corpus for an endowment
fund. The Foundation shall invest the corpus and use the
income generated from such an investment to fund programs
designed to support the educational needs of public schools
in Northern New Mexico educating children in the area around
the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
____
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment is critical to recognize
the mandate of the last Congress to stop assistance payments to the
School District of Los Alamos, NM. under the auspices of the Atomic
Energy Community Act of 1955. It enables the high quality of education
in northern New Mexico required to attract the staff of the Los Alamos
National Laboratory--the staff that enables the laboratory to fulfill
its Federal missions. And it recognizes that many school districts in
the vicinity of the laboratory are now contributing to the educational
programs required by the laboratory's staff and that these districts
must offer suitably challenging educational programs.
[[Page S7269]]
The Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955 enabled assistance payments
for communities and school districts impacted by the presence of major
atomic energy facilities. These facilities were primarily located in
remote areas, to address the security concerns accompanying their
missions. Assistance payments were required in recognition of the
nearly complete dependence of these cities on AEC facilities that did
not pay local taxes. It was also in recognition that the quality of the
schools available in these communities played a critical role in the
recruitment and retention of personnel at these remote sites. And in
those early days, most of the laboratory staff lived in Los Alamos.
Over the years, most of these atomic energy communities moved to
either attain economic self-sufficiency or were close enough to self-
sufficiency that they could accept buyout provisions to enable their
self-sufficiency.
Of school districts, only Los Alamos still needed these payments. In
last year's Energy and Water Appropriations Act, we noted that fiscal
year 1997 would be the last payment to the Los Alamos schools under the
Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955. The Department was directed to
develop other approaches for continued funding needs.
The amendment we consider here today represents a critical step in
providing required resources for the Los Alamos schools. It implements
the plan developed by the Department to fulfill the congressional
mandate. It recognizes that the personnel required at Los Alamos are
now resident in many communities, not only Los Alamos, in the remote
areas of northern New Mexico. The requirement to provide educational
programs that will aid in recruitment and retention for the staff of
Los Alamos National Laboratory is still present, but many school
districts now house the workers for the laboratory--not only Los
Alamos. Those districts also need enriched programs to accomplish their
contribution to the laboratory's Federal mission. In response to the
congressional mandate, the Department developed the concept of an
educational foundation in northern New Mexico, that can supply
educational enrichment funding to these school districts.
This amendment authorizes funding to start this foundation and
specifies that only interest from the initial Federal investment will
be used for educational enrichment programs. The Department intends to
fund this foundation, pending appropriations, over a period of about 5
years, during which time it will build the foundation's funding to a
level to supply appropriate levels of enrichment funding to those
districts impacting laboratory workers.
The amendment is an important step in stopping further funding under
the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955 and fulfills the mandate of the
previous Congress.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, section 3161(c) of the fiscal year 1996
National Defense Authorization Act called for the Department of Energy
to examine the need for continued funding of the Los Alamos School
District and to make recommendations to the Congress. If the
Department's recommendation indicates a need for further assistance for
the school board or the county, as the case may be, after June 30,
1997, the recommendation shall include a report and plan describing the
actions needed to eliminate the need for further assistance for the
school board or the county, including a proposal for legislative action
to carry out the plan.
The amendment that I am offering today, with my colleague the senior
Senator from New Mexico, is the result of this planning process,
involving the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Department of Energy,
and the Los Alamos school board, and takes a major step toward
downsizing the Department's contribution to the Los Alamos School
District.
The amendment provides for a Federal payment in fiscal year 1998 of
$5 million to a foundation that will support educational excellence in
the schools serving the children of Los Alamos employees. This Federal
payment will be matched by a contribution by the University of
California--out of its contract fee for managing and operating Los
Alamos National Laboratory--and by private fundraising in the State.
The amendment further provides that the interest earned on any Federal
payment will remain with the foundation, instead of reverting to the
U.S. Treasury, as would be the case absent a special provision to the
contrary. In our discussions with the majority members of the Senate
Armed Services Committee on this amendment, we have agreed that future
payments to the foundation from the Department will be in order, so
that the corpus of the endowment is sufficient to sustain excellence in
the school system, but that more analysis is required to arrive at an
overall figure for such additional support. This is the first step
toward bringing to a close the annual payment to the school district.
It is important to recognize that the Los Alamos School District is
subject to a number of special conditions that makes the development of
alternative funding sources difficult.
The State of New Mexico funds its public schools under an
equalization formula. Thus, the Los Alamos School District is not
funded from local property taxes directly, but from a State-wide fund
into which all such property taxes go. This factor represents an
important constraint on the ability of the community to tax itself to
enhance its school system. As part of the agreement that resulted in
this legislative proposal, the school board has agreed to seek special
legislation in New Mexico that would allow it to raise revenues to
supplement the State-mediated funding.
Because of its geographic isolation and lack of developable land, Los
Alamos is one of the highest-cost-of-living communities in New Mexico,
with a cost of living 40 percent higher than the State average and 23
percent higher than the average for all of the United States. Thus,
even though Los Alamos receives the same State funding as other
comparably sized school districts, in Los Alamos the dollars do not go
as far.
Setting up an educational foundation to help shoulder the burden that
the Department has been carrying makes good sense. Further, the Los
Alamos School District has committed to a number of actions that will
further decrease the need for Department of Energy support in the
future. It will increase fees to students for various activities,
implement energy efficiency measures, and reduce administrative costs.
Already, this year the Los Alamos School District has reduced its
spending by roughly $900,00 through such measures, and it will continue
to examine contracts and functions in the future in order to reduce
costs.
The Department of Energy and the Congress have always recognized that
the quality of the local school system is a significant factor is many
relocation decisions involving personnel whom Los Alamos National
Laboratory would like to attract and retain. The national interest in
maintaining the strength of the laboratory translates into a need to
have a mechanism that will produce a superior school system in the
communities which are home to the technical employees of the
laboratory. This proposal is a major step toward doing that at reduced
cost to the Government, and I urge its adoption.
amendment no. 763, as modified
(Purpose: To congratulate Governor Christopher Patten of Hong Kong)
At the appropriate place in the bill at the following new
section:
Sec. . (A) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds
that--
(1) His Excellency Christopher F. Patten, the now former
Governor of Hong Kong, was the twenty-eight British Governor
to preside over Hong Kong, prior to that territory reverting
back to the People's Republic of China on July 1, 1997;
(2) Chris Patten was a superb administrator and an
inspiration to the people who he sought to govern;
(3) During his five years as Governor of Hong Kong, the
economy flourished under his stewardship, growing by more
than 30% in real terms;
(4) Chris Patten presided over a capable and honest civil
service;
(5) Common crime declined during his tenure, and the
political climate was positive and stable;
(6) Chris Patten's legacy to Hong Kong is the expansion of
democracy in Hong Kong's legislative council and a tireless
devotion to the rights, freedoms and welfare of Hong Kong's
people.
(7) Chris Patten fulfilled the British commitment to ``put
in place a solidly based democratic administration'' in Hong
Kong prior to July 1, 1997.
(B) It is the Sense of the Congress that--
(1) Governor Chris Patten has served his country with great
honor and distinction; and
[[Page S7270]]
(2) He deserves special thanks and recognition from the
United States for his tireless efforts to develop and nurture
democracy in Hong Kong.
____
amendment no. 806
(Purpose: To authorize contracting for procurements of capital assets
before funds are available in working-capital funds for such
procurements)
At the end of subtitle E of title III, add the following:
SEC. 369. CONTRACTING FOR PROCUREMENT OF CAPITAL ASSETS IN
ADVANCE OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS IN THE
WORKING-CAPITAL FUND FINANCING THE PROCUREMENT.
Section 2208 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(l)(1) A contract for the procurement of a capital asset
financed by a working-capital fund may be awarded in advance
of the availability of funds in the working-capital fund for
the procurement.
``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any of the following capital
assets that have a development or acquisition cost of not
less than $100,000:
``(A) A minor construction project under section 2805(c)(1)
of this title.
``(B) Automatic data processing equipment or software.
``(C) Any other equipment.
``(D) Any other capital improvement.''.
____
Amendment No. 807
(Purpose: To delete the authority to convey the B-17 aircraft under
section 1070 without consideration)
On page 341, line 18, strike out ``, without
consideration,''.
On page 341, at the end of line 23, add the following:
``The Secretary of the Air Force shall determine the
appropriate amount of consideration that is comparable to the
value of the aircraft.''.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to comment on the
proposed technical amendment I have offered to section 1070 of S. 936,
the fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense authorization bill.
Specifically, section 1070 would grant the Secretary of the Air Force
the authority to convey to the Planes of Fame Museum in Chino, CA, a B-
17 aircraft known as the ``Picadilly Lilly.'' It is my understanding
that the aircraft is in need of repairs, and the museum would be
willing to do the necessary work on the B-17 provided the museum had
clear title to the aircraft.
Technically, it is my understanding that the aircraft is historical
property under the administration of the U.S. Air Force Museum, which
is located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, OH. It is also
my understanding that the Air Force Museum has been attempting to work
out an agreement with the Planes of Fame Museum that would allow for
the latter facility to take the B-17 in exchange for other historical
property. I am told the Air Force Museum is prepared to continue to
work in good faith with the Planes of Fame Museum to arrive at an
exchange that is mutually beneficial.
The technical change I am offering simply is designed to ensure that
if the Secretary of the Air Force exercises the discretion provided in
section 1070, the Secretary determine appropriate compensation in
exchange for the B-17. The provision, as amended, now would provide the
Secretary with the authority to convey the aircraft, after determining
an appropriate level of compensation, and securing other conditions of
conveyance. I certainly hope that the Secretary of the Air Force and
the Air Force Museum will work together with the Planes of Fame Museum
to reach an agreement that is in the best interests of all parties.
Mr. President, let me close by thanking my distinguished friend from
Virginia, Mr. Warner; the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr.
Thurmond; and their staffs for their assistance with this amendment.
amendment no. 808
(Purpose: To establish at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center a pilot
program of higher education with respect to the administration of
business relationships between the Federal Government and the private
sector)
On page 353, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
SEC. 1107. HIGHER EDUCATION PILOT PROGRAM FOR THE NAVAL
UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Navy may establish
under the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (hereafter in this
section referred to as the ``Center'') and the Acquisition
Center for Excellence of the Navy jointly a pilot program of
higher education with respect to the administration of
business relationships between the Federal Government and the
private sector.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the pilot program is to make
available to employees of the Center and employees of the
Naval Sea Systems Command a curriculum of graduate-level
higher education that--
(1) is designed to prepare the employees effectively to
meet the challenges of administering Federal Government
contracting and other business relationships between the
Federal Government and businesses in the private sector in
the context of constantly changing or newly emerging
industries, technologies, governmental organizations,
policies, and procedures (including governmental
organizations, policies, and procedures recommended in the
National Performance Review); and
(2) leads to award of a graduate degree.
(c) Partnership With Institution of Higher Education.--(1)
The Secretary may enter into an agreement with an institution
of higher education to assist the Center with the development
of the curriculum, to offer courses and provide instruction
and materials to the extent provided for in the agreement, to
provide any other assistance in support of the pilot program
that is provided for in the agreement, and to award a
graduate degree under the pilot program.
(2) An institution of higher education is eligible to enter
into an agreement under paragraph (1) if the institution has
an established program of graduate-level education that is
relevant to the purpose of the pilot program.
(d) Curriculum.--The curriculum offered under the pilot
program shall--
(1) be designed specifically to achieve the purpose of the
pilot program; and
(2) include--
(A) courses that are typically offered under curricula
leading to award of the degree of Masters of Business
Administration by institutions of higher education; and
(B) courses for meeting educational qualification
requirements for certification as an acquisition program
manager.
(e) Distance Learning Option.--The pilot program may
include policies and procedures for offering distance
learning instruction by means of telecommunications,
correspondence, or other methods for off-site receipt of
instruction.
(f) Period for Pilot Program.--The Secretary shall carry
out the pilot program during fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
(g) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the termination
of the pilot program, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report on the pilot program. The report shall include the
Secretary's assessment of the value of the program for
meeting the purpose of the program and the desirability of
permanently establishing a similar program for all of the
Department of Defense.
(h) Institution of Higher Education Defined.--In this
section, the term ``institution of higher education'' has the
meaning given the term in section 1201 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141).
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) Funds are
authorized to be appropriated for the Navy for the pilot
program for fiscal year 1998 in the total amount of
$2,500,000. The amount authorized to be appropriated for the
pilot program is in addition to other amounts authorized by
other provisions of this Act to be appropriated for the Navy
for fiscal year 1998.
(2) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section 421
is hereby reduced by $2,500,000.
amendment no. 809
(Purpose: To provide funds for the operation for Fort Chaffee,
Arkansas)
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:
``of the amount authorized for O&M, Army National Guard,
$6,854,000 may be available for the operation of Fort
Chaffee, Arkansas.''
____
amendment no. 810
(Purpose To authorize $12,000,000 to be set aside for contracted
training flight services)
At the end of subtitle E of title III, add the following:
SEC. 369. CONTRACTED TRAINING FLIGHT SERVICES.
Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under section
301(4), $12,000,000 may be used for contracted training
flight services.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the Contracted Training Flight Services
Program was instituted 10 years ago because the Air Force and Air
National Guard determined that civilian companies could provide a high
level of electronic warfare training at a much lower price than the
military itself.
The track record of this program has indeed shown that civilians can
provide this training at a significantly lower price. The mathematics
are clear. This program serves a vital training need: modern
sophisticated, and high quality electronic countermeasures training. It
is far cheaper to provide this training using cheaper-to-operate
commercial jet aircraft than our military fighters.
The Senate Armed Services Committee has a history of supporting this
program and believes that it has resulted in significant savings to the
Air Force and Air National Guard. I am pleased that Senator Coverdell
join me in offering this amendment, and I urge its adoption.
[[Page S7271]]
AMENDMENT NO. 811
(Purpose: To ensure the President and Congress receive unencumbered
advice from the directors of the national laboratories, the members of
the Nuclear Weapons Council, and the commander of the United States
Strategic Command regarding the safety, security, and reliability of
the United States nuclear weapons stockpile)
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''.
(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 or the
Department of Energy who is appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate.
(B) Any member of the National Security Council.
(C) Any member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(D) Any official of the Office of Management and Budget.
(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.
____
amendment no. 812
(Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance, Hancock Field, Syracuse, New
York)
On page 409, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
SEC. 2819. LAND CONVEYANCE, HANCOCK FIELD, SYRACUSE, NEW
YORK.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--(1) The Secretary of the Air
Force may convey, without consideration, to Onondaga County,
New York (in this section referred to as the ``County''), all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of real property, including any improvements thereon,
consisting of approximately 14.9 acres and located at Hancock
Field, Syracuse, New York, the site of facilities no longer
required for use by the 152nd Air Control Group of the New
York Air National Guard.
(2) If at the time of the conveyance authorized by
paragraph (1) the property is under the jurisdiction of the
Administrator of General Services, the Administrator shall
make the conveyance.
(b) Condition of Conveyance.--The conveyance authorized by
subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the
County use the property conveyed for economic development
purposes.
(c) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines at any time
that the property conveyed pursuant to this section is not
being used for the purposes specified in subsection (b), all
right, title, and interest in and to the property, including
any improvements thereon, shall revert to the United States,
and the United States shall have the right of immediate entry
thereon.
(d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the property to be conveyed under subsection
(a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the
County.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to cointroduce legislation
with Senator Moynihan that would greatly assist economic development in
Syracuse, NY. This legislation concerns Hancock Field in Syracuse.
There are two parcels of land there that the Air Force Base Conversion
Agency intends to dispose of, and would be of great value to the
Hancock Field Development Corp. In this amendment, we ask
[[Page S7272]]
that these parcels of land be conveyed to the corporation so that they
may use the land to further economic development in the region and
increase jobs.
The first parcel of land was formerly the base housing management
area. It is at a strategic spot on Performance Drive because it is
needed to complete a major access way to the industrial airpark. The
second parcel is 15 acres at the center of the airpark which is
currently the site of the 152d Air Control Group, which is moving to a
new location very soon. This parcel is owned by the Federal Government
and will be declared surplus and disposed of through the traditional
GSA property disposal process, rather than the BRAC disposal process.
These small actions will have a big effect on the redevelopment at
Hancock. I am very pleased that this amendment has been agreed to. I
would also like to thank Chairman Thurmond and Senator Levin, the
ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. Their leadership in
getting this important legislation passed was very instrumental.
amendment no. 813
(Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance, Havre Air Force Station,
Montana, and Havre Training Site, Montana)
On page 409, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
SEC. 2819. LAND CONVEYANCE, HAVRE AIR FORCE STATION, MONTANA,
AND HAVRE TRAINING SITE, MONTANA.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--(1) The Secretary of the Air
Force may convey, without consideration, to the Bear Paw
Development Corporation, Havre, Montana (in this section
referred to as the ``Corporation''), all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the real property
described in paragraph (2).
(2) The authority in paragraph (I) applies to the following
real property:
(A) A parcel of real property, including any improvements
thereon, consisting of approximately 85 acres and comprising
the Havre Air Force Station, Montana.
(B) A parcel of real property, including any improvements
thereon, consisting of approximately 9 acres and comprising
the Havre Training Site, Montana.
(b) Conditions of Conveyance.--The conveyance authorized by
subsection (a) shall be subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the Corporation--
(A) convey to the Box Elder School District 13G, Montana,
10 single-family homes located on the property to be conveyed
under that subsection as jointly agreed upon by the
Corporation and the school district; and
(B) grant the school district, access to the property for
purposes of removing the homes from the property.
(2) That the Corporation--
(A) convey to the Hays/Lodgepole School District 50,
Montana--
(i) 27 single-family homes located on the property to be
conveyed under that subsection as jointly agreed upon by the
Corporation and the school district;
(ii) one barracks housing unit located on the property;
(iii) two steel buildings (nos. 7 and 8) located on the
property;
(iv) two tin buildings (nos. 37 and 44) located on the
property; and
(v) miscellaneous personal property located on the property
that is associated with the buildings conveyed under this
subparagraph; and
(B) grant the school district access to the property for
purposes of removing such homes and buildings, the housing
unit, and such personal property from the property.
(3) That the Corporation--
(A) convey to the District 4 Human Resources Development
Council, Montana, eight single-family homes located on the
property to be conveyed under that subsection as jointly
agreed upon by the Corporation and the council; and
(B) grant the council access to the property for purposes
of removing such homes from the property.
(4) That any property conveyed under subsection (a) that is
not conveyed under this subsection be used for economic
development purposes or housing purposes.
(c) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines at any time
that the property conveyed pursuant to this section which is
covered by the condition specified in subsection (b)(4) is
not being used for the purposes specified in that subsection,
all right, title, and interest in and to such property,
including any improvements thereon, shall revert to the
United States, and the United States shall have the right of
immediate entry thereon.
(d) Description of Property.--The exact acreages and legal
description of the parcels of property conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by surveys satisfactory to
the Secretary. The cost of the surveys shall be borne by the
Corporation.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment to the
Department of Defense authorization measure providing for the
conveyance of the Havre Air Force Station and Training Site in
northcentral Montana to the Bear Paw Development Corp.
These two facilities comprise over 90 acres of real property.
Seventy-seven buildings are located on the property, including 45
single family homes. The U.S. Air Force deactivated these facilities in
1993 although it has maintained the facilities since that time.
Members of the Bear Paw Development Corp. include Hill, Blaine,
Liberty, and Chouteau Counties, the cities of Havre, Chinook, Harlem,
and Fort Benton, the town of Chester and the Fort Belknap and Rocky
Boy's Tribal Governments. It was officially recognized by the U.S.
Economic Development Administration in 1968 and has received similar
recognition from the State of Montana as well.
Bear Paw Development provides a variety of community and economic
development services to its members including helping local governments
plan for infrastructure improvements and secure needed financing. It
also provides training and technical assistance to businesses through
the Small Business Development Center and the Montana Microbusiness
Program.
My amendment provides that Bear Paw will convey the single family
homes as well as several other buildings to the Box Elder School
District adjacent to the Rocky Boy's Reservation and the Hays/Lodgepole
School District on the Fort Belknap Reservation. Both school districts
will use the buildings for classrooms and school facilities.
In addition the Human Resource Development Council in Havre will
receive eight homes which it will use to house the homeless.
The real property and remaining structures will be utilized by Bear
Paw for local economic development projects.
Mr. President, this conveyance results in several important benefits:
Relieving the Air Force and taxpayers of the responsibility of
preserving deactivated facilities, helping local school districts
provide adequate and safe school facilities for their students, and
promoting economic stability and growth in northcentral Montana. Truly
all parties will benefit from this transfer.
Thank you for your consideration.
Amendment No. 814
(Purpose: To authorize the production of tritium in commercial
facilities)
On page 444, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
SEC. 3139. TRITIUM PRODUCTION IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES.
(a) Section 91 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2121) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d). The Secretary may--
``(A) demonstrate the feasibility of, and
``(B)(i) acquire facilities by lease or purchase, or
``(ii) enter into an agreement with an owner or operator of
a facility, for
the production of tritium for defense-related uses in a
facility licensed under section 103 of this Act.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 815
(Purpose: To require the screening of real property authorized or
required to be conveyed by the Department of Defense)
On page 397, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
SEC. 2805. SCREENING OF REAL PROPERTY TO BE CONVEYED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) Requirement.--(1) Chapter 159 of title 10, United
States Code, as amended by section 2803 of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
Sec. 2697. Screening of certain real property before
conveyance
``(a) Requirement.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision
of law and except as provided in subsection (b), the
Secretary concerned may not convey real property that is
authorized or required to be conveyed, whether for or without
consideration, by any provision of law unless the
Administrator of General Services determines that the
property is surplus property to the United States in
accordance with the Federal Property and Administrative
Service Act of 1949.
``(2) The Administrator shall complete the screening
required for purposes of paragraph (1) not later than 30 days
after the date of enactment of the provision authorizing or
requiring the conveyance of the real property concerned.
``(3)(A) As part of the screening of real property under
this subsection, the Administrator shall determine the fair
market value of the property, including any improvements
thereon.
[[Page S7273]]
``(B) In the case of real property determined to be
surplus, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a
statement of the fair market, value of the property,
including any improvements thereon, not later than 30 days
after the completion of the screening.
``(b) Excepted Authority.--Subsection (a) shall not apply
to real property authorized or required to be disposed of
under the following provisions of law:
``(1) Section 2687 of this title.
``(2) Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526; 10
U.S.C. 2687 note).
``(3) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990
(part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687
note).
``(4) Any provision of law authorizing the closure or
realignment of a military installation that is enacted after
the date of enactment of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998.
``(5) Title II of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 481 et seq.).
``(c) Limitation on Modification or Waiver.--A provision of
law may not be construed as modifying or superseding the
provisions of subsection (a) unless that provision of law--
``(A) specifically refers to this section; and
``(B) specifically states that such provision of law
modifies or supersedes the provisions of subsection (a).''.
``(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such
chapter, as so amended, is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``2697. Screening of certain real property before conveyance.''.
``(b) Applicability.--Section 2697 of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section,
shall apply with respect to any real property authorized or
required to be conveyed under a provision of law covered by
such section that is enacted after December 31, 1996.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am pleased the committee has adopted an
amendment Senator McCain and I have offered which requires the General
Services Administration to conduct a Federal screening of property
conveyed by the Department of Defense. This amendment also requires
that GSA provide Congress with a statement of value for any real
property which is conveyed by the Department of Defense.
This provision will codify a process which started when I was
chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, and which was continued by
Senator McCain when he was chairman. I congratulate and thank Senator
Inhofe and Senator Robb for accepting this amendment. In previous
years, this informal process sought to ensure that taxpayer's interests
were partially protected, by conducting an expedited 30-day screen
conducted by the General Services Administration for other Federal
interest of each proposed land conveyance in the defense authorization
bill. Because these land conveyance provisions implicitly waive the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, the committee cannot
assure taxpayers that the Federal Government is not seeking to acquire
property that is similar to what the legislative provisions are giving
away.
Now, Mr. President, some have suggested that screening this property
for Federal interest is just a bureaucratic procedure that delays the
productive use of property which the member in his or her judgment
believes to be the best interest of his or her constituents. Others
have suggested that this process is a waste of time because the
expedited screening policy implemented by Senator McCain and myself
never resulted in property being flagged for other Federal use.
I would like to address each of these points.
First, Federal screening is the law of the land. If Congress, and the
Armed Services Committee in particular, believe that it is no longer
necessary, the appropriate action is to amend the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act.
Now let me explain why Federal screening of excess property makes
sense. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record, at the
conclusion of my remarks, a chart provided by the General Services
Administration entitled, ``Recent Examples of Excess Real Property
Screened by GSA with Federal Agencies and Subsequently Transferred to
other Federal Agencies for Continued Federal Use.''
Mr. President, this chart shows why Federal screening of excess
property saves taxpayer dollars. The chart lists five examples,
including two from the Department of Defense, where excess property
from one agency was transferred to another Federal agency as a result
of the screening process. The total value of property in these five
examples is almost $36 million. What this means, Mr. President, is that
the screening process saved Federal taxpayers $36 million because the
receiving agencies were able to utilize property which the holding
agency no longer needed.
I would expect that my colleagues who speak of the importance of
balancing the budget and are so-called deficit hawks would be
interested in the result of GSA's valuation of these properties.
So to conclude, I am pleased that the committee has accepted this
amendment. As a result I do not intend to offer the amendment I have
filed on the individual land conveyance provisions. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to ensure that this provision is retained in
conference.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
RECENT EXAMPLES OF EXCESS REAL PROPERTY SCREENED BY GSA WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES AND SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO
OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR CONTINUED FEDERAL USE \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holding agency Property name Acres Receiving agency Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force....................... Pease Air Force Base, New 1,054 Fish and Wildlife. $24,000,000
Hampshire.
National Institute of Health.... Triangle Park, North Carolina.... 132 EPA............... 6,600,000
Navy............................ Brooklyn Navy Yard, New York..... 5.7 Bureau of Prisons. 4,000,000
GSA............................. Curtis Bay Storage, Maryland..... 12 Corps of Engineers 900,000
GSA (reverter).................. Wellesley Island, New York....... 5 Border Patrol..... 240,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal screening requires minimal property information from the Holding agency and can be conducted many
months prior to an excess action.
amendment no. 816
(Purpose: To make available $15,000,000 for the DOD/VA Cooperative
Research Program)
On page 15, line 22, strike out ``$2,918,730,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$2,903,730,000''.
On page 30, line 14, strike out ``$10,072,347,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$10,087,347,000''.
On page 46, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 220. DOD/VA COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM.
Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section
201(4), $15,000,000 shall be available for the DOD/VA
Cooperative Research Program. The Secretary of Defense shall
be the executive agent for the funds authorized under this
section.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to
further a valuable, mutually beneficial affiliation between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans' Affairs by
authorizing a $15 million increase for the DOD/VA Cooperative Research
Program. This program encourages health-related research which benefits
both veterans and active duty military personnel. In fact, fostering
this collaborative relationship was the original intent of the DOD
appropriation, back when this program began in 1987. It has been funded
every year since then. Funding for this amendment is made available
from the Army procurement, specifically, special equipment for user
testing.
Each year, the DOD/VA Cooperative Research Program begins with
jointly selected, specific research topics, and the Departments,
working together, come up with priorities for research areas and the
appropriate funding levels. The VA and DOD jointly designate
representatives to oversee the entire process. The result is research
which provides a strong, direct link between DOD and VA investigators
to pursue research of mutual interest, and facilitates research that
follows the natural course of disease or injury in individuals, first
as active duty military personnel, and then as veterans.
I am cosponsoring this amendment with Senator Durbin and Senator
Specter who also believe that the joint research program reaps
tremendous
[[Page S7274]]
benefits. I thank the distinguished junior Senator from Pennsylvania
for his willingness to reach agreement on this amendment.
In fiscal year 1997, DOD and VA agreed to spend the funds provided
for this program on such areas as a new Environmental Epidemiology
Research Center and studies on combat casualty care including bone
healing, blood replacement, skin repair, vascular repair, and spinal
cord injury. Last year's program also yielded expanded research on
prostate cancer and emerging pathogens.
In addition, I am particularly encouraged by a new research program
on psychiatric disease and post-traumatic stress disorder targeted at
identifying risk profiles for soldiers who might have a higher
probability of developing PTSD. This PTSD-prevention program will be
developing methods to screen potential combat-ready soldiers for PTSD.
As the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have
witnessed the devastating effects of PTSD on the lives of former
military personnel, and I am enormously encouraged by research which
may prevent the onset of PTSD.
Because of the collaborative nature of the joint program, this
amendment does not specify research areas for focus. Rather, it leaves
that decision with the Departments. Given the number of unanswered
questions surrounding the illnesses and health problems of gulf war
veterans, however, I am optimistic the DOD and VA will want to pursue
more research in this area to help identify effective treatments and
recognize the battlefield risks that our troops face in today's
warfare. This research would not only address the current health
problems of gulf war veterans, it will also help identify prevention
measures for future deployments. As the nature of war changes, the
modern military must cope with threats that include environmental
hazards and possible biological or chemical warfare, as well as the
more traditional hazards of combat. Research is needed to ensure that
we are ready to meet these new risks.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues
from West Virginia and Illinois in offering an amendment which would
authorize continued funding for the successful program of medical
research conducted jointly by the Departments of Defense and Veterans
Affairs.
This important and cost-effective program began in 1987 and has been
funded at approximately $20 million per year every year since then.
This research partnership is built on the concept of joint DOD-VA
policy making, scientific review, and research performance. Research
efforts are targeted at areas of mutual DOD-VA concern such as
mutations in microorganisms that become known pathogens and are
encountered by soldiers in foreign environments, trauma and wound
healing, and stress-related chronic illnesses including PTSD and the
possible effect of stress on undiagnosed symptoms experienced by
Persian Gulf War veterans.
The Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs are joined by their
common responsibilities to the men and women who are first service
members, but subsequently become veterans. In the DOD-VA Cooperative
Research program each Department brings unique strengths to the table
to advance their joint missions and commitments. Perhaps that is why
DOD's Dr. Anna Johnson-Winegar, Director, Environmental and Life
Sciences, has been quoted as saying ``Our investigators are very
enthusiastic about participating in these joint initiatives.''
Mr. President, both the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs
will benefit from the approval of this amendment. Even more
importantly, the men and women who now wear the uniforms of our Armed
Forces and who will one day become veterans will reap the benefits of
the medical research authorized by this amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I applaud the authorization of $15 million
for the DOD-VA Cooperative Research Program. Authorization of these
funds will guarantee the continuation of this laudable research effort.
The DOD-VA Cooperative Research Program supports important research
that contributes significantly to the health missions of both DOD and
the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]. Since 1987, the VA medical and
prosthetics research appropriation has been supplemented by funds
transferred to VA under a cooperative agreement with DOD. The DOD-VA
research program has become a truly collaborative effort and one that
is mutually beneficial to both DOD and VA. The work performed under
this program addresses conditions affecting both active duty personnel
and veterans, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, the consequences
of exposure to environmental hazards, wound repair, brain and spinal
cord injury, and skin and vascular repair. No other program supports
this type of mission-relevant cooperative research.
I expect that with this funding, areas of mutual interest to DOD and
VA in the fields of medical and psychological research will continue.
Specifically, this funding encourages innovative endeavors in
accordance with the five jointly established programs: the DOD-VA
environmental epidemiology research center; research on psychological
diseases and post-traumatic stress disorder; cardiovascular fitness;
research in prostate cancer and emerging pathogens; and casualty care
enhancement.
It is imperative for the health and well-being of our veterans and
active-duty military personnel that Congress continue to fund this
important initiative by authorizing $15 million for the DOD-VA
Cooperative Research Program. This is the least that we can do in
recognition of the invaluable service rendered by our veterans and
military personnel.
AMENDMENT NO. 817
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the process of
enlarging the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should be a continuous
process)
On page 347, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
SEC. 1075. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING EXPANSION OF THE
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) met on
July 8 and 9, 1997, in Madrid, Spain, and issued invitations
to the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland to begin accession
talks to join NATO.
(2) Congress has expressed its support for the process of
NATO enlargement by approving the NATO Enlargement
Facilitation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 22 U.S.C. 1928
note) by a vote of 81-16 in the Senate, and 353-65 in the
House of Representatives.
(3) The United States has assured that the process of
enlarging NATO will continue after the first round of
invitations in July.
(4) Romania and Slovenia are to be commended for their
progress toward political and economic reform and meeting the
guidelines for prospective membership in NATO.
(5) In furthering the purpose and objective of NATO in
promoting stability and well-being in the North Atlantic
area, NATO should invite Romania, Slovenia, and any other
democratic states of Central and Eastern Europe to accession
negotiations to become NATO members as expeditiously as
possible upon the satisfaction of all relevant membership
criteria.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that NATO should be commended--
(1) for having committed to review the process of enlarging
NATO at the next NATO summit in 1999; and
(2) for singling out the positive developments toward
democracy and rule of law in Romania and Slovenia.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this week, Heads of State and Government of
the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance met in Madrid and
agreed to expand of NATO by inviting the Czech Republic, Hungary, and
Poland to begin accession talks with NATO. These central European
countries were always considered the likely first nations to be invited
to join since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergency of
democracy in these countries.
Since the end of Soviet hegemony in Central and Eastern Europe, these
countries have strived to break free from the oppressive burden of
State controlled economies and one party governments with great
success. I applaud the advances which these nations have made.
There are other nations which deserve recognition for their enormous
accomplishments. While their successes have been more recent, they
nonetheless have demonstrated a commitment in a positive direction
which should be acknowledged and encouraged. Both Romania and Slovenia
present a tremendous case for NATO enlargement. While the
administration
[[Page S7275]]
has determined not to pursue their accession at this time, I believe
that these nations have made significant strides which certainly
recommend them for NATO membership in the near term.
The Senate has supported the concept of expanding NATO for those
emerging democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, which have
struggled and successfully shaken the yoke of their former communist
systems. In October 1996, Congress voted overwhelmingly by 81 to 16 to
approve the NATO Facilitation Act. This bill provides valuable
resources to assist these nations in making essential changes to their
defense structure in order to help prepare them for NATO membership.
Last month in the State Department bill, the Senate included Romania,
the Baltics, and Bulgaria as eligible for this assistance. This
positive step reflects the progress in democracy-building and economic
development being undertaken in these nations. I believe that more
needs to be done to encourage these new democracies along the positive
path they are following. They need firm commitments and a clear
understanding that NATO is not off limits to them.
The amendment I am proposing, along with Senator Breaux, Senator
Brownback, and Senator Gordon Smith, is a sense of Senate that NATO
strongly signal other Central and Eastern European nations that
enlargement process will not end with these first three nations. The
communique from the NATO Madrid Summit states that:
The Alliance expects to extend further invitations in
coming years to nations willing and able to assume the
responsibilities and obligations of membership, and as NATO
determines that inclusion of these nations would serve the
overall political and strategic interests of the Alliance and
that the inclusion would enhance overall European security
and stability.
There should be invitations extended to other nations that meet the
criteria for membership at the NATO summit associated with the 50th
anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty in April 1999. It is important
for the United States and NATO to continue to clearly demonstrate the
intention to continue to enlarge NATO based on the progress of these
emerging democracies. By so doing, NATO sends an unmistakable message
to other central European countries that they will have an opportunity
to become a part of NATO as they continue to strengthen democratic
institutions, pursue free market economies, and modernize their
military in support of NATO objectives.
I believe that Romania presents a particularly strong case for future
membership. Last November, the people of Romania voted overwhelmingly
to elect Emil Constantinescu as their new President. His election
demonstrated that Romanians wanted to firmly put the communist era--
which had dominated Romania's Government and economy--behind them. In
voting to oust Ion Iliescu in favor of Constantinescu, they rejected
state socialism, stagnant economies, corrupt government practices in
search of a revitalized economy, a new political openness and
reconciliation, and a pro-western posture. With Constantinescu they got
a reform-committed President and a parliament to match. The process of
change in Romania is now firmly in place.
Romania's new Government has initiated price liberalization and
privatization. They are enacting laws to encourage greater foreign
investment, a step which was desperately needed. The President has been
clear from the start that economic reform would be difficult but the
Romanian people have continued to support his policies. The
international financial institution's recognize Romania's positive
ecomomic steps and have reward them accordingly. In April the
International Monetary Fund announced a loan of $430 million to Romania
and the World Bank loans of up to $530 million.
In addition, Romania has put aside historic differences with its
neighbors. They have produced political agreements with Hungary and
Ukraine to reconcile border disputes and resolve ethnic tensions.
Indeed, President, Constantinescu has showed a tremendous effort to
reach out to the Hungarian ethnic minorities in Romania by bringing
Hungarians into the government.
As a military alliance, NATO needs to take seriously the commitment
of prospective members to contribute to NATO's collective security.
Romania has also shown the commitment needed to bring its military to
modern standards. They have expressed a willingness to take on the
responsibilities and costs associated with NATO membership. Romania was
the first nation to join the Partnership for Peace program and have
participated in missions in Bosnia and Albania as well as other
peacekeeping missions. They understand that NATO is not a one-way
security arrangement. Romania fully intends to contribute effectively
to the security and stability of the alliance. They are already
increasing their defense budget and their military is firmly under
civilian control. They are incorporating new training procedures to
conform with NATO standards. In addition, Romania is well on its way to
meeting the considerable interoperability objectives established by
NATO.
I believe also that Romania's geographical location would serve
NATO's strategic considerations as well. Romania's membership would be
an important asset in strengthening NATO's southern flank and provide a
key geostrategic position at the Black Sea.
Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment as a commitment to
continue the process of a NATO enlargement.
Amendment No. 818
(Purpose: To provide for research, development, test, and evaluation of
Multitechnology Integration in Mixed-Mode Electronics)
On page 46, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 220. MULTITECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION IN MIXED-MODE
ELECTRONICS.
(a) Amount for Program.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated under section 201(4), $7,000,000 is available
for Multitechnology Integration in Mixed-Mode Electronics.
(b) Adjustments to Authorization of Appropriations.--(1)
The amount authorized to be appropriated under section 201(4)
is hereby increased by $7,000,000.
(2) The amount authorized to be appropriated under section
101(5) and available for special equipment for user testing
is reduced by $7,000,000.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes
appropriations of $7,000,000 for a project called multitechnology
integration in mixed-mode electronics. It is a project that will help
give the United States a military advantage over our potential
adversaries because it will support the development of technologies far
superior to the off-the-shelf technologies that are becoming available
to all nations on the global markets.
As technologies are developed and commercialized, they become more
standardized, mass produced, and widely available. We need to move
beyond this cycle and find unique ways to integrate technologies into
products that offer superior performance and are not available off-the-
shelf.
This appropriation increase is offset by a reduction in the Army's
procurement appropriation for purchasing special equipment for user
testing.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Amendment No. 819
(Purpose: To authorize a multiyear contract for the Family of Medium
Tactical Vehicles (FMTV))
At the end of subtitle B of title I, add the following:
SEC. 113. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR FAMILY OF
MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES.
Beginning with the fiscal year 1998 program year, the
Secretary of the Army may, in accoredance with section 2306b
of title 10, United States Code, enter into a multiyear
procurement contract for the procurement of vehicles of the
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles. The contract may be for a
term of our years and include an option to extend the
contract for one additional year.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this amendment would authorize the
Secretary of the Army to enter into a multiyear procurement contract
for the family of medium tactical vehicles [FMTV]. This authority is
significant for the following reasons:
First, the Army fleet of aging trucks, the backbone for our premier
land force, has reached the end of its useful life and new trucks are
required to support the heavy demand we place on these vehicles.
Second, the Army will complete acquisition of the first round of new
[[Page S7276]]
FMTV trucks through an existing multiyear in 1998. The soldiers in the
field love these new trucks. They are reliable, capable, and are easily
maintained. We must continue to field these trucks to our soldiers as
quickly as possible.
Third, the multiyear authority will be exercised within the current
budget and will result in 9.5 percent savings over the life of the
multiyear or $122.3 million. This means that the Army will be able to
field more trucks than would otherwise be possible with current budget
constraints.
Mr. President, I strongly support the fielding of these trucks and
believe that this multiyear will make the best use of available
resources and will help our soldiers. I strongly urge my colleagues to
support the amendment.
I ask unanimous consent a description of the background on the FMTV
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles [FMTV] Multi-Year
Sponsor: Senator Thurmond.
Amendment: Add a provision authorizing a multiyear program
for FMTV.
Background: The FMTV program has, after a somewhat rocky
start, provided extremely high quality medium trucks to
replace the aging truck fleet throughout the Army. The old
2.5 ton and 5 ton trucks that one sees in pictures from the
Vietnam era through some present day operations are in many
cases older than the soldiers driving them. The Army will
conclude its first multiyear program for the FMTV in mid-1998
(fiscal year). To date, the Army has procured approximately
10,000 of these new trucks out of a requirement for 85,400.
The committee did not recommend a multiyear provision for
1998 as the Army failed to adequately fund the program (with
resources necessary to maintain production) and the follow-on
assumption that this failure does not demonstrate steady
fiscal support for this important piece of equipment.
Arguments to support a multiyear provision: Much needed
truck that needs to be fielded expeditiously to replace a
very old and costly fleet. Soldiers love the new trucks and
they are performing well.
Any action that would reduce the cost of this program must
be considered favorably.
The Army did request additional funding on its ``wish
list'' for the FMTV (thereby demonstrating support and
commitment to the program).
Authorizing a multiyear will result in a 9.5 percent cost
savings (over the four year life of the multiyear) or $122.3
million dollars.
Arguments Against the Multiyear Provision: The Army failed
to adequately fund this program in 1998 and result would have
been a break in production (2-4 months). [Note--The committee
added $44 million to resolve this problem] This does not
demonstrate support for funding required for a program for
which they request a multiyear authority.
Recommendation: Support the multiyear provision.
amendment no. 820
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Air Force to conduct a cost
and operation effectiveness analysis regarding ALR radar warning
receivers)
At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following:
SEC. 132. ALR RADAR WARNING RECEIVERS.
(a) Cost and Operation Effectiveness Analysis.--The
Secretary of the Air Force shall conduct a cost and operation
effectiveness analysis of upgrading the ALR69 radar warning
receiver as compared with the further acquisition of the
ALR56M radar warning receiver.
(b) Submission to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit the
cost and operation effectiveness analysis to the
congressional defense committees not later than April 2,
1998.
____
amendment no. 821
(Purpose: To provide $5,000,000 for a facial recognition technology
program)
On page 46, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 220. FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
(a) Availability of Funds.--(1) Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, the amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 201(4) is hereby increased by
$5,000,000.
(2) Funds available under the section referred to in
paragraph (1) as a result of the increase in the
authorization of appropriations made by that paragraph may be
available for a facial recognition technology program. The
Secretary shall use competition procedures in selecting
participants for the program.
(b) Offset.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, the amount authorized to be appropriated by section
201(1) is hereby decreased by $5,000,000.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my amendment would authorize an
additional $5 million for the DOD's Counter-Terrorism Technical Support
Program, to fund the development of facial recognition access control
technology. FRAC technology is an innovative means of positively
identifying individuals, either singularly or in a crowd, for a range
of security purposes. The Eigenface method of facial recognition is the
core technology of a new system that quickly recognizes and identifies
a person by capturing his or her face on a quickly scanning camera.
This new biometric identification method computes in each face a
characteristic set of component images, or Eigenfaces, which can be
used to positively identify an individual.
This rapid-scanning capability is superior to traditional ID cards,
authorization keypads, palm readers, and most retinal scanners. Unlike
conventional systems, it can scan a crowd and pick out individual
faces, rather than require individuals to position themselves before a
scanner. It is perfect for use at airports, border crossings, or
wherever large numbers of people pass through for entry and time-
consuming identification procedures are not practical. This technology
will support the counter-terrorism effort the Congress established last
year, addressing one of the most pressing national security threats we
face.
Mr. SMITH. I want to commend the Senator from Massachusetts for this
very useful amendment. Facial recognition is a critical tool in
securing sensitive areas and safeguarding military and civilian
personnel. It will improve our ability to control access to critical
facilities and at our borders. I am glad to cosponsor this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to thank the Senator from New Hampshire for
his support of this important funding. The technology is inexpensive,
well-understood, and uses off-the-shelf-equipment. The Defense
Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of
Justice have all acknowledged the potential benefit of Eigenface
identification systems for their security needs. I am grateful for your
support of the important provision.
I also want to mention that the source of the offset for this funding
increase is $5 million provided for travel and transportation of
personnel in the Army's Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
account. This reduction brings the account down to the same level
provided in fiscal year 1997. All of the other services have requested
and been provided the same level of funding for this function in fiscal
year 1998 as they were provided in fiscal year 1997.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I believe that this amendment will help
fill an important gap in our defense capability. I support this
additional $5 million for facial recognition technology.
Mr. LEVIN. I join Senators Kennedy, Smith, and Thurmond in their
support of this innovative technology. It will have a dual role as an
access control device and for protecting the United States from the
ever-increasing threat of terrorism.
AMENDMENT NO. 822
(Purpose: To require a report on the Joint Statement on Parameters on
Future Reductions in Nuclear Forces issued at Helsinki in March 1997)
On page 306, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
SEC. 1041. REPORT ON HELSINKI JOINT STATEMENT.
(A) Requirement.--Not later than March 31, 1998, the
President shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the Helsinki joint statement on future
reductions in nuclear forces. The report shall address the
U.S. approach (including verification implications) to
implementing the Helsinki joint statement, in particular, as
it relates to: lower aggregate levels of strategic nuclear
warheads; measures relating to the transparency of strategic
nuclear warhead inventories and the destruction of strategic
nuclear warheads; deactivation of strategic nuclear delivery
vehicles; measures relating to nuclear long-range sea--
launched cruise missiles and tactical nuclear systems; and
issues related to transparency in nuclear materials.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Helsinki Joint Statement'' means the
agreements between the President of the United States and the
President of the Russian Federation as contained in the Joint
Statement on Parameters of Future Reductions in Nuclear
Forces issued at Helsinki in March 1997.
(2) The term ``START II Treaty'' means the Treaty Between
the United States of America and the Russian Federation on
Further Reduction and Limitation on Strategic Offensive Arms,
signed at Moscow on January 3, 1993, including any protocols
and
[[Page S7277]]
memoranda of understanding associated with the treaty.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to express my support for a very
important amendment offered by Senator Bingaman, a key member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
The bill before us is a critical one. It authorizes $269 billion for
the military activities of this country--everything from the pay for
the men and women who so capably serve this country to the aircraft,
tanks and ships they operate to the housing in which they reside. This
single bill provides for all of this. The members of the committee are
to be commended for their excellent work.
Despite the numerous critical issues this bill does address, there is
one crucial area that the Senator from New Mexico and I think requires
further attention--the status of our efforts with the Russians to
implement the START II agreement and, as importantly, design meaningful
and verifiable measures to take us beyond the constraints of START II.
Mr. President, many in this body on both sides of the aisle believe
that reducing the number of existing nuclear weapons and controlling
their spread to other countries represents the gravest challenge to our
national security. START II called for a limit of 3,500 deployed
warheads by 2003. At the Helsinki summit earlier this year, Presidents
Clinton and Yeltsin agreed to reduce this ceiling to 2,000 to 2,500 by
the end of 2007. In addition, they concurred on the need for exchanges
of information about total United States and Russian stockpiles of
strategic warheads and about the elimination of excess warheads.
Finally, they agreed to negotiate confidence-building ``transparency''
arrangements such as on-site inspections.
These are all worthwhile measures and, in this Senator's opinion,
very timely. The Pentagon has already indicated it can protect this
nation's interests and deter would-be aggressors with significantly
fewer weapons than would be permitted under START II. I agree with this
assessment. Therefore, like Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin, Senator
Bingaman and I think it's appropriate to explore doing much more than
called for in START II.
That is the purpose of our amendment. We ask the President to submit
a report to Congress describing how the United States plans to
implement the Helsinki accords. The decisions reached at Helsinki will
have far-reaching implications for both the United States and Russia.
We hope that with this report, the administration will analyze the
consequences of their announced path as well as describe any other
additional approaches that merit further inquiry.
Despite the fact that the cold war ended nearly a decade ago, the
United States and the Russians still maintain thousands of nuclear
weapons poised to be launched within seconds of receiving notice to do
so. None of these weapons are on bombers. The United States decided
years ago that it no longer needed to keep bombers on such a high alert
status. However, we and the Russians each maintain roughly 3,000
weapons on ballistic missiles ready to go at the push of a button. With
this amendment, we hope the administration will consider whether
keeping such large numbers of weapons in such a high alert status
remains in our national interest. As stated in a recent editorial by
Senator Nunn and Bruce Blair, ``It is time to rethink the unthinkable.
The United States and Russia should cast off the mental shackles of
deterrence and make our nuclear relationship more compatible with our
political relationship.'' The authors go on to state we can accomplish
this by first reducing the number of weapons we have poised to launch
at a moment's notice. This report would address this important question
as well as the other central elements contained in the Helsinki
agreement.
Mr. President, with this amendment, we are asking the administration
to examine the case made by Senator Nunn, Gen. Lee Butler, and many
others. Although we are requesting just a study of this issue, it is a
study that could eventually lead us to a safer, more secure world. I
believe this is the time, and this is the bill, for the Senate to
express its desire to explore this course.
amendment no. 823
(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate relating to the utilization
of savings derived from the base closure process)
On page 410, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 2832. SENSE OF SENATE ON UTILIZATION OF SAVINGS DERIVED
FROM BASE CLOSURE PROCESS.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Since 1988, the Department of Defense has conducted 4
rounds of closures and realignments of military installations
in the United States, resulting in the closure of 97
installations.
(2) The cost of carrying out the closure or realignment of
installations covered by such rounds is estimated by the
Secretary of Defense to be $23,000,000,000.
(3) The savings expected as a result of the closure or
realignment of such installations are estimated by the
Secretary to be $10,300,000,000 through fiscal year 1996 and
$36,600,000,000 through 2001.
(4) In addition to such savings, the Secretary has
estimated recurring savings as a result of the closure or
realignment of such installations of approximately
$5,600,000,000 annually.
(5) The fiscal year 1997 budget request for the Department
assumes a savings of between $2,000,000,000 and
$3,000,000,000 as a result of the closure or realignment of
such installations, which savings were to be dedicated to
modernization of the Armed Forces. The savings assumed in the
budget request were not realized.
(6) The fiscal year 1998 budget request for the Department
assumes a savings of $5,000,000,000 as a result of the
closure or realignment of such installations, which savings
are to be dedicated to modernization of the Armed Forces.
(b) Sense of Senate on Use of Savings Resulting From Base
Closure Process.--It is the sense of the Senate that the
savings identified in the report under section ______ should
be made available to the Department of Defense solely for
purposes of modernization of new weapon systems (including
research, development, test, and evaluation relating to such
modernization) and should be used by the Department solely
for such purposes.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this amendment will address concerns that
we have discussed here on the floor regarding the Base Realignment and
Closure [BRAC] process.
Before the Congress ever considers to authorize future BRAC
commissions--a process which I strongly oppose, we should take a more
detailed look at whether those elusive savings from infrastructure
reductions will ever be achieved. That is what I accomplish by the
amendment which I offer today.
Mr. President, I have consistently asked what has happened to savings
from the past four BRAC actions. The Pentagon estimated savings from
the four previous base closing rounds to reach $57 billion over a 20-
year period with annualized savings of $5.6 billion per year starting
in 2001. In its April 1995 report, the GAO estimate for such savings
projects the savings at less than half these numbers. GAO estimates
that the 20-year savings may be $17.3 billion, with annual recurring
savings possibly reaching $1.8 billion.
Mr. President, GAO conducted further analysis and issued a following
report in a April 1996. In this report, GAO found that the total amount
of actual savings that may be estimated from BRAC actions is uncertain
for several reasons. One of which is that DOD accounting systems do not
provide adequate information or isolate their impact from that of other
DOD initiatives.
Despite the fact that DOD has complied with legislative requirements
for submitting annual cost and savings estimates, the GAO further
states that the estimates' usefulness is limited because the estimates
are not budget quality, and that the inclusion of the estimates of
reduced personnel costs by all the services are not uniform and
further, the GAO determined that certain community assistance costs
were excluded.
In one example, GAO identified the fact that DOD BRAC cost estimates
excluded more than $781 million in economic assistance to local
communities as well as other costs.
Mr. President, in its December 1996 report, CBO stated that it was
unable to confirm or assess DOD's estimates of cost savings because the
DOD is unable to report actual spending and savings from BRAC actions.
So now Mr. President, we have the Pentagon, the GAO, and CBO with
differing estimates on what has actually happened and what is supposed
to happen as a result of the four previous BRAC rounds. There is no
consensus on the numbers--and that is a significant
[[Page S7278]]
problem. It seems everybody has a different number on the issue, and
there are numerous inconsistencies on the estimates of what the savings
are supposed to be. And the Congress has been assured that starting in
the year 2001, the savings may in fact be realized. I question that
assurance Mr. President, because I do not think we know what they will
be. But what we do know now, is that any savings from the past four
base closure rounds have yet to be realized.
Mr. President, the intent of DOD to streamline its infrastructure
cost is not lost on us. We must recognize that the need to fill the
projected $17 billion gap between projected procurement funding and the
procurement funding objective of $60 billion. Mr. President, throughout
this year's DOD authorization process, the Congress has heard testimony
from the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the
respective service chiefs and service secretaries, and to a person,
each has testified on the importance of modernizing our military forces
for the 21st century. But Mr. President, that just is not happening.
Mr. President, the projections for national defense outlays decrease
34.4 percent over the period from 1990 to 2002. We have all seen the
downward pressure on defense spending. Yet the future years defense
plan [FYDP] calls for a 40-percent increase in the military's
modernization budget within the confines of an overall defense budget
that will more likely be flat at best. We have seen procurement funding
plummet from $54 billion in 1990 to today's level of just over $42
billion.
The U.S. military has undergone a significant transformation in the
post-cold-war period. Specifically, from 1989 to 1997, DOD reduced
total active duty end strength by 32 percent, with further reductions
to 36 percent by 2003 as a result of the QDR. After the completion of
four previous base closure rounds, the world-wide base structure will
have been reduced by 26 percent, and domestic facilities will have been
reduced by 21 percent. In more tangible numbers 97 of 495 major bases,
as well as hundreds of smaller facilities and housing areas, and the
realignment of many other bases and facilities has already been
accomplished by this process.
However, we are chasing elusive infrastructure savings, and there is
no straight line corollary between the size of our forces and the
infrastructure required to meet two nearly simultaneous major regional
conflicts. DOD has even admitted to GAO investigators that they do not
have accounting systems in place to isolate the impact of specific
initiatives, such as BRAC.
The amendment which I offer states that it is the sense of the Senate
that the savings through previous BRAC actions which are estimated by
the Department of Defense be made available to the Department solely
for the purpose of modernization of new weapons systems.
Mr. President, I am offering this amendment so that the Congress will
send a very clear message to this administration. The Congress
recognizes the limited resources that are available to the Department
of Defense, and that we have to insure that these dollars are invested
wisely. Not only so our military forces can meet the commitments of
today, but also so our military forces will be prepared to meet the
challenges of the 21st century, and continued to be the most capable
military force in the world.
Mr. President, we must send a very clear message that the past base
closure process which has been so devastating to many local communities
will actually result in savings that can be invested in our force
modernization.
Mr. President, that is what my amendment accomplishes, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Amendment No. 824
(Purpose: To conform limits for Department of Energy General Plant
Projects to recommendations from the Department contained in a
Congressionally mandated report on the subject)
On page 425, line 12, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert
``$5,000,000''.
On page 425, line 17, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert
``$5,000,000''.
On page 429, line 6, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert
``$5,000,000''.
____
Amendment No. 825
(Purpose: To provide for a pilot program relating to use of proceeds
from the disposal or utilization of certain Department of Energy assets
for activities funded by the defense Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management account)
On page 444, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
SEC. 3139. PILOT PROGRAM RELATING TO USE OF PROCEEDS OF
DISPOSAL OR UTILIZATION OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY ASSETS.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is encourage the
Secretary of Energy to dispose of or otherwise utilize
certain assets of the Department of Energy by making
available to the Secretary the proceeds of such disposal or
utilization for purposes of activities funded by the defense
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management account.
(b) Crediting of Proceeds.--(1) Notwithstanding section
3302 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary may
retain from the proceeds of the sale, lease, or disposal of
an asset under subsection (c) an amount equal to the cost of
the sale, lease, or disposal of the asset. The Secretary
shall utilize amounts retained under this paragraph to defray
the cost of the sale, lease, or disposal.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the cost of a sale,
lease, or disposal shall include--
(A) the cost of administering the sale, lease, or disposal;
(B) the cost of recovering or preparing the asset concerned
for the sale, lease, or disposal; and
(C) any other cost associated with the sale, lease, or
disposal.
(3) If after amounts from proceeds are retained under
paragraph (1) a balance of the proceeds remains, the
Secretary shall--
(A) credit to the defense Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management account an amount equal to 50 percent of the
balance of the proceeds; and
(B) cover over into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts
an amount equal to 50 percent of the balance of the proceeds.
(c) Covered Transactions.--Subsection (b) applies to the
following transactions:
(1) The sale of heavy water at the Savannah River Site,
South Carolina.
(2) The sale of precious metals under the jurisdiction of
the Environmental Management Program.
(3) The lease of buildings and other facilities located at
the Hanford Reservation, Washington and under the
jurisdiction of the Environmental Management Program.
(4) The lease of buildings and other facilities located at
the Savannah River Site and under the jurisdiction of the
Environmental Management Program.
(5) The disposal of equipment and other personal property
located at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site,
Colorado and under the jurisdiction of the Environmental
Management Program.
(6) The disposal of materials at the National Electronics
Recycling Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee and under the
jurisdiction of the Environmental Management Program.
(d) Availability of Amounts.--To the extent provided in
advance in appropriations Acts, the Secretary may use amounts
credited to the defense Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management account under subsection (b)(3)(A) for any
purposes for which funds in that account are available.
(e) Applicability of Disposal Authority.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to limit the application of
sections 202 and 203(j) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483 and
484(j)) to the disposal of equipment and other personal
property covered by this section.
(f) Annual Report.--Not later than January 31 each year,
the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the amounts credited by the Secretary
under subsection (b)(3)(A) during the preceding fiscal year.
____
amendment no. 826
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to assess and report on
the Cuban threat to United States national security)
At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1041. ASSESSMENT OF THE CUBAN THREAT TO UNITED STATES
NATIONAL SECURITY.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States has been an avowed enemy of Cuba for
over 35 years, and Fidel Castro has made hostility towards
the United States a principal tenet of his domestic and
foreign policy.
(2) The ability of the United States as a sovereign nation
to respond to any Cuban provocation is directly related to
the ability of the United States to defend the people and
territory of the United States against any Cuban attack.
(3) In 1994, the Government of Cuba callously encouraged a
massive exodus of Cubans, by boat and raft, toward the United
States.
(4) Countless numbers of those Cubans lost their lives on
the high seas as a result of those action of the Government
of Cuba.
(5) The humanitarian response of the United States to
rescue, shelter, and provide emergency care to those Cubans,
together with the actions taken to absorb some 30,000 of
those Cubans into the United States, required immeasurable
efforts and expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars
for the costs incurred by the United States and State and
local governments in connection with those efforts.
(6) On February 24, 1996, Cuban MiG aircraft attacked and
destroyed, in international airspace, two unarmed civilian
aircraft flying from the United States, and the
[[Page S7279]]
four persons in those unarmed civilian aircraft were
killed.
(7) Since the attack, the Cuban government has issued no
apology for the attack, nor has it indicated any intention to
conform its conduct to international law that is applicable
to civilian aircraft operating in international airspace.
(b) Review and Report.--Not later than March 30, 1998, the
Secretary of Defense shall carry out a comprehensive review
and assessment of Cuban military capabilities and the threats
to the national security of the United States that are posed
by Fidel Castro and the Government of Cuba and submit a
report on the review to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives. The report shall contain--
(1) a discussion of the result of the review, including an
assessment of the contingency plans; and
(2) the Secretary's assessment of the threats, including--
(A) such unconventional threats as--
(i) encouragement of migration crises; and
(ii) attacks on citizens and residents of the United States
while they are engaged in peaceful protest in international
waters or airspace;
(B) the potential for development and delivery of chemical
or biological weapons; and
(C) the potential for internal strife in Cuba that could
involve citizens or residents of the United States or the
Armed Forces of the United States.
(c) Consultation on Review and Assessment.--In performing
the review and preparing the assessment, the Secretary of
Defense shall consult with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, the Commander-in-Chief of the United States
Southern Command, and the heads of other appropriate agencies
of the Federal Government.
____
amendment no. 827
(Purpose: To require a report on fire protection and hazardous
materials protection at Fort Meade, Maryland)
On page 306, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
SEC. 1041. FIRE PROTECTION AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROTECTION
AT FORT MEADE, MARYLAND.
(a) Plan.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit
to the congressional defense committees a plan to address the
requirements for fire protection services and hazardous
materials protection services at Fort Meade, Maryland,
including the National Security Agency at Fort Meade, as
identified in the preparedness evaluation report of the Army
Corps of Engineers on Fort Meade.
(b) Elements.--The plan shall include the following:
(1) A schedule for the implementation of the plan.
(2) A detailed list of funding options available to provide
centrally located, modern facilities and equipment to meet
current requirements for fire protection services and
hazardous materials protection services at Fort Meade.
AMENDMENT NO. 828
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Army to enter into an
agreement to provide police, fire protection, and other services at
property formerly associated with Red River Army Depot, Texas)
On page 347, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
SEC. 1075. SECURITY, FIRE PROTECTION, AND OTHER SERVICES AT
PROPERTY FORMERLY ASSOCIATED WITH RED RIVER
ARMY DEPOT, TEXAS.
(a) Authority To Enter into Agreement.--(1) The Secretary
of the Army may enter into an agreement with the local
redevelopment authority for Red River Army Depot, Texas,
under which agreement the Secretary provides security
services, fire protection services, or hazardous material
response services for the authority with respect to the
property at the depot that is under the jurisdiction of the
authority as a result of the realignment of the depot under
the base closure laws.
(2) The Secretary may not enter into the agreement unless
the Secretary determines that the provision of services under
the agreement is in the best interests of the United States.
(3) The agreement shall provide for reimbursing the
Secretary for the services provided by the Secretary under
the agreement.
(b) Treatment of Reimbursement.--Any amounts received by
the Secretary under the agreement under subsection (a) shall
be credited to the appropriations providing funds for the
services concerned. Amounts so credited shall be merged with
the appropriations to which credited and shall be available
for the purposes, and subject to the conditions and
limitations, for which such appropriations are available.
____
amendment no. 829
(Purpose: To propose a substitute for section 1040, relating to GAO
reports)
Strike out section 1040, and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
SEC. 1040. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FOR ANNUAL REPORT ON ACTIVITIES
OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.
Section 719(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(3) The report under subsection (a) shall also include a
statement of the staff hours and estimated cost of work
performed on audits, evaluations, investigations, and related
work during each of the three fiscal years preceding the
fiscal year in which the report is submitted, stated
separately for each division of the General Accounting Office
by category as follows:
``(A) A category for work requested by the chairman of a
committee of Congress, the chairman of a subcommittee of such
a committee, or any other member of Congress.
``(B) A category for work required by law to be performed
by the Comptroller General.
``(C) A category for work initiated by the Comptroller
General in the performance of the Comptroller General's
general responsibilities.''.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment to delete
section 1040 from the bill and replace it with an annual reporting
requirement.
Let me take just a moment to express my concerns with some activities
of the General Accounting Office over the years. Starting with the
Persian Gulf war, when the GAO sent auditors to the battlefield to
inspect Apache helicopters, I have been concerned about the GAO's self-
initiated activities, particularly in the areas under the jurisdiction
of the Armed Services Committee. In the past several years, the GAO has
undertaken increasing numbers of self-initiated audits while relegating
congressionally mandated activities to a lower priority.
Because of this inappropriate prioritization, the committee included
a provision in the fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization bill that
would require the Comptroller General of the United States to certify
to Congress that all audits, evaluations, other reviews, and reports
requested by Congress or required by law are complete prior to the
initiation of any audits, evaluations, other reviews, and reports that
are not required by Congress. I sponsored this provision because I
believe it would make the GAO, a legislative branch agency, far more
responsive to the needs of the Congress.
I understand there are a number of concerns regarding this provision.
One concern is that this provision would effectively prevent the GAO
from performing any valuable, self-initiated jobs that could save
billions of dollars. I find this extremely hard to believe. With 535
Members of Congress, from different backgrounds and with varied
interests, it is hard to imagine a situation where the GAO could not
find a congressional sponsor for an audit which would save billions of
dollars.
Another concern is that this provision is not in the jurisdiction of
the Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, it is because the GAO
continues to perform a number of self-initiated jobs relating to issues
under the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee, while the
requests of committee members are either canceled or remain unfinished,
that the committee decided to take action.
A third concern questions the necessity of such a provision. We have
been told that only 20 percent of the GAO's work is self-initiated.
First of all, I have concerns regarding the GAO's definition of what is
self-initiated and what is requested by Congress. I understand that if
a staff member expresses some interest in an issue, an audit may be
initiated as a request of the Senator for whom that staff member works.
I personally believe a signed request letter from a Member of Congress
should be required before an audit can be considered a congressional
request. Furthermore, I have concerns that these numbers do not provide
a complete picture. Although only 20 percent of GAO's total workload
may be self-initiated, a far larger percentage of the work within a
particular division may be self-initiated. For example, I understand
that as of June 16, 1997, 50 percent of the work being performed by the
National Security and International Affairs Division was self-
initiated.
I am also troubled by what appears to be the pursuit of personal
agendas by GAO personnel that permeates much of their work. Many of
GAO's reports provide only one side of a story rather than the whole
picture. Just as we require witnesses in a court of law to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, we should require no
less from the GAO. If we in Congress take the work of the GAO
seriously, and use it in our efforts to make well-informed decisions
that serve the best interests of the American taxpayer, than GAO should
be expected to provide the entire picture rather than one side that
serves the interests of a specific group.
[[Page S7280]]
Mr. President, despite my concerns and the GAO's demonstrated lack of
responsiveness, I have decided to amend my original language at the
personal request of Senators Thompson and Glenn. As the chair and
ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I am sure that
they will do all they can to ensure that the work of the GAO is more
responsive and complete. However, if for some reason the GAO continues
to demonstrate a disregard for the needs of the Congress, I intend to
reintroduce the original language and rein in the rogue activities of
the GAO.
Amendment No. 830
(Purpose: To propose a substitute to section 363)
In lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken, insert the
following:
SEC. 363. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ADVERSELY AFFECTING MILITARY
TRAINING OR OTHER READINESS ACTIVITIES.
(a) Congressional Notification.--Chapter 101 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 2014. administrative actions adversely affecting
military training or other readiness activities
``(a) Congressional Notification.--Whenever an official of
an Executive agency takes or proposes to take an
administrative action that, as determined by the Secretary of
Defense in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, affects training or any other readiness activity in
manner that has or would have a significant adverse effect on
the military readiness of any of the armed forces or a
critical component thereof, the Secretary shall submit a
written notification of the action and each significant
adverse effect to the head of the Executive agency taking or
proposing to take the administrative action and to the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee
on National Security of the House of Representatives and, at
the same time the shall transmit a copy of the notification
to the President.
``(b) Notification To Be Prompt.--(1) Subject to paragraph
(2), the Secretary shall submit a written notification of an
administrative action or proposed administrative action
required by subsection (a) as soon as the Secretary becomes
aware of the action or proposed action.
``(2) The Secretary shall prescribe policies and procedures
to ensure that the Secretary receives information on an
administrative action or proposed administrative action
described in subsdoes ection (a) promptly after Department of
Defense personnel receive notice of such an action or
proposed actio.action
``(c) Consultation Between Secretary and Head of Executive
Agency.--Upon notification with respect to an administrative
action or proposed administrative action under subsection
(a), the head of the Executive agency concerned shall--
``(1) respond promptly to the Secretary; and
``(2) consistent with the urgency of the training or
readiness activity involved and the provisions of law under
which the administrative action or proposed administrative
action is being taken, seek to reach an agreement with the
Secretary on immediate actions to attain the objective of the
administrative action or proposed administrative action in a
manner which eliminates or mitigates the impacts of the
administrative action or proposed administrative action upon
the training or readiness activity.
``(d) Moratorium.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), upon
notification with respect to an administrative action or
proposed administrative action under subsection (a), the
administrative action or proposed administrative action shall
cease to be effective with respect to the Department of
Defense until the earlier of--
``(A) the end of the five-day period beginning on the date
of the notification; or
``(B) the date of an agreement between the head of the
Executive agency concerned and the Secretary as a result of
the consultations under subsection (c).
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to an
administrative action or proposed administrative action if
the head of the Executive agency concerned determines that
the delay in enforcement of the administrative action or
proposed administrative action will pose an actual threat of
an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or
the environment.
``(e) Effect of Lack of Agreement.--(1) In the event the
head of an Executive agency and the Secretary do not enter
into an agreement under subsection (c)(2), the Secretary
shall submit a written notification to the President who
shall take final action on the matter.
``(2) Not later than 30 days after the date on which the
President takes final action on a matter under paragraph (1),
the President shall submit to the committees referred to in
subsection (a) a notification of the action.
``(f) Limitation on Delegation of Authority.--The head of
an Executive agency may not delegate any responsibility under
this section.
``(g) Definition.--In this section, the term `Executive
agency' has the meaning given such term in section 105 of
title 5 other than the General Accounting Office.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``2014. Administrative actions adversely affecting military training or
other readiness activities.''.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the
amendment offered by Senator Chafee, I would like to explain why I
believe that this amendment not only protects public health and the
environment, but will also ensure that we will maintain a strong
national defense.
As my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee are aware, the
original motivation of section 363 of the National Defense
Authorization Act, as reported, grew out of a series of executive
agency actions in the various regions of the country that needlessly
limited or stopped ongoing training activities. In those instances,
long-scheduled training and readiness efforts of active duty, reserve
and national guard forces were stopped in their tracks, because of the
rash and unjustified actions of overzealous Federal bureaucrats.
Although the action taken by these low-level functionaries was within
their powers, and met applicable public safety, welfare, and
environmental statues, the timing and nature of the actions taken were
neither justified nor appropriate given the lack of actual and
immediate implications to human health and the environment. As a result
of these highly unjustified actions, troops who had to travel hundreds
and sometimes thousands of miles, at considerable cost to the
taxpayers, were unable to conduct these critical training and readiness
missions.
The purpose of the original language offered in committee, would have
allowed the Secretary of Defense to impose a 30-day moratorium on the
application of administrative or enforcement actions that could have a
significant adverse effect on military readiness or training
activities. Although appreciating the justification for the language,
there were some, including Senator Chafee, who were concerned about the
impact that this language would have on existing public welfare,
safety, and environmental statutes. In order to address this concern,
Senator Chafee and I, along with members of the Armed Services
Committee were able to fashion the compromise language that we are
offering today, that will strike the proper balance in these
situations.
Under this language, if the Secretary of Defense discovers that an
official of an Executive agency is proposing to take, or has taken an
administration action that will result in a significant adverse effect
on the training or readiness activities of the armed forces, the
Secretary shall submit a written notification to the head of that
agency, which will trigger a mandatory consultation between those two
officials. In addition, the Secretary's notification will trigger an
immediate moratorium on the application of the administrative action
until 5 days after the notification, or until the head of the Executive
agency and the Secretary are able to agree on an appropriate course of
action, whichever is sooner. If the two officials are unable to agree
on a course of action, then the ultimate decision will be elevated to
the President.
One significant concern over the committee reported language was that
a 30-day moratorium was too stringent and could frustrate efforts to
avoid immediate, actual, and irreparable damage to human health and the
environment. Subsection (D)(2) of this amendment provides that the head
of the Executive agency can waive the moratorium if a determination is
made that the delay in the administrative action or proposed
administrative action will pose an actual threat of imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health and the environment. This
language will not only strike an important balance between national
defense and public welfare concerns, but it will also avoid a
replication of past events undertaken by low-level bureaucrats. If the
military training activity will pose an actual threat of imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health and the environment, that
decision will have to be taken by the head of the Executive agency. We
believe that actions such as this, which will have a significant impact
on our national security, should be taken by the top decision
[[Page S7281]]
maker at the agency, who is in a better position to understand the full
complexities of this decision, rather than some low-level government
employee.
I want to make one thing clear about this waiver however. The head of
the Executive agency must meet a higher threshold of use of this
provision than the tired and over-litigated test for the words imminent
and substantial. The use of the words ``actual threat'' doesn't mean
just a ``possible threat'' or a ``potential threat.'' Instead, it means
that if the training or readiness activity is undertaken that it is
``highly likely'' or ``near certain'' that there will be an actual
threat to public health and the environment.
We must protect public health and the environment and we must ensure
our national defense. When these issues come into conflict, we must
take special efforts to balance these issues. Decisions of this nature
should be made at the highest levels of our government, and because of
this language, they will.
I believe this is a very important amendment, and I appreciate the
support of my colleagues for its adoption.
AMENDMENT NO. 831
(Purpose: To recognize the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies as an
institution of the National Defense University)
At the end of title IX, add the following:
SEC. 905. CENTER FOR HEMISPHERIC DEFENSE STUDIES.
(a) Institution of the National Defense University.--
Subsection (a) of section 2165 of title 10, United States
Code, as added by section 902, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(6) the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies.''.
(b) Civilian Faculty Members.--Section 1595 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) Application to Director and Deputy Director at Center
for Hemispheric Defense Studies.--In the case of the Center
for Hemispheric Defense Studies, this section also applies
with respect to the Director and the Deputy Director.''.
____
amendment no. 832
(Purpose: To authorize additional environmental restoration projects
for the Department of Energy and to modify the amount authorized for
certain other environmental restoration projects of the Department)
On page 18, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
SEC. 110. REDUCTION IN AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
aggregate amount of funds available for Department of
Defense. Army procurement Advisory & Assistance Services
shall be reduced by $30,000,000.
On page 415, line 11, strike out ``$1,748,073,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$1,741,373,000.''
On page 417, line 16, strike out ``$252,881,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$237,881,000''.
On page 423, line 7, strike out ``$215,000,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``$264,700,000''.
On page 423, line 10, strike out ``$29,000,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``$21,000,000''.
On page 423, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Project 98-PVT-__, waste disposal, Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
$5,000,000.
Project 98-PVT-__, Ohio silo 3 waste treatment, Fernald,
Ohio, $6,700,000.
On page 423, line 19, strike out ``$109,000,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$147,000,000.''
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, last Monday I introduced an amendment
that could have helped ensure this bill is not vetoed by President
Clinton because it violates the bipartisan budget agreement. Today, we
have reached agreement on that amendment--but it does not go nearly far
enough.
Let me lay out what this defense authorization bill does in very
large terms. This bill adds $5.1 billion to the Pentagon's request. It
does this by moving $2.4 billion from defense-related activities of the
Energy Department to the Defense Department--primarily in procurement
and R&D. The two Energy programs hardest hit are privatization of
cleanup efforts and forward funding of asset acquisition.
My amendment sought to restore some of the privatization money
because we have a huge problem at the Hanford Reservation that could be
solved with this new funding. We have 177-million-gallon tanks filled
with chemical and high-level radioactive waste located near the
Columbia River. The environmental devastation at Hanford and other
former defense nuclear sites is truly mind-numbing. We must clean up
the mess we have made. Privatization offers us an opportunity to do
that and reduce costs and increase efficiency.
My amendment sought to restore $300 million of the $1 billion the
President sought in this one-time shot in the arm of the environmental
management program. Instead, I was successful in securing only $59.7
million, making the amount this bill funds only $274.7 million. This is
a tremendous shortfall and could result in the Federal Government
missing legally enforceable cleanup milestones.
Mr. President, the House defense authorization bill is even worse--
funding the entire privatization program at only $70 million. Our
Senate conferees must insist we keep the entire amount we have in this
bill. Senator Gorton and I have the commitment of Sen. Thurmond that
the conferees will do that.
On the appropriations front, I was able to secure an extra $43
million yesterday in the Senate energy and water development
appropriations bill. The privatization account increased from $300
million to $343 million. Again, the House is rumored to be far, far
lower--and the appropriation's conferees will have a difficult job
ahead to keep even these greatly diminished funds.
We made a huge mess at Hanford while we were fighting and winning the
cold war. Now we must pay the debt the federal government owes to these
cold warrior communities. And this bill takes a small step--but just
doesn't do the job. However, I do want to thank the committee for
accepting my amendment and I look forward to working with the chairman
and ranking member to ensure these numbers remain in the bill this
Congress sends to the President.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for
this amendment offered by my colleague from Washington State, Senator
Murray, and me which would increase budget authority for the Department
of Energy's Environmental Management Program by $50 million.
It is absolutely essential that the Senate provide as high a level of
funding for the Department's privatization program as possible. Like
Senator Murray, I am particularly interested in this program because of
the tank waste remediation system [TWRS] privatization program at
Hanford. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation houses over 55 million gallons
of hazardous nuclear and chemical wastes in 177 underground storage
tanks located near the Columbia River. The TWRS program was established
to manage, retrieve, treat, and immobilize and dispose of these wastes
in a safe and cost effective manner.
Under the TWRS program, the contractors are responsible for
demonstrating the technical and business viability of using privatized
facilities to treat and immobilize Hanford tank wastes; define and
maintain required levels of nuclear, radiological, and occupational
safety; maintain environmental protection and compliance; and reduce
costs and remediation time.
Under the privatization program, a contractor can recover the
resources it has invested only through the delivery of acceptable
services paid for by the DOE on a fixed-unit-price basis. The
underlying intent is to transfer the primary share of the financial,
performance and operational responsibility for the treatment effort
from the government to the private contractor.
TWRS and similar privatization efforts if done correctly and with
proper oversight will allow for significant cost savings and represent
an opportunity to use private-sector means and innovative technologies
to accelerate cleanup. Without TWRS privatization, it is unlikely we
can meet the long-term cleanup compliance milestones at Hanford. If
TWRS privatization is not pursued, the project will need to be funded
from the base environmental management account which will necessitate
cuts elsewhere in the DOE cleanup program--not only at Hanford but at
sites throughout the country.
In order for the privatization concept to work, enough funds must be
provided in budget authority to send the appropriate signal to Wall
Street and the investment community that Congress is committed to this
project. Funding TWRS at a level as close to the President's budget
request is vitally important to the success of this program. Increasing
funding for this program by $50 million would bring total funding for
privatization to $265
[[Page S7282]]
million--the same figure that we appropriated on the Appropriations
Committee yesterday. I urge support for this amendment.
amendment no. 833
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to grant a blanket
waiver of the applicability of certain domestic source requirements to
foreign country so as not to impede cooperative projects or reciprocal
procurements of defense items with such country)
At the end of subtitle A of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. 809. BLANKET WAIVER OF CERTAIN DOMESTIC SOURCE
REQUIREMENTS FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES WITH CERTAIN
COOPERATIVE OR RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH
THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Authority.--(1) Section 2534 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Wavier Generally Applicable to a Country.--The
Secretary of Defense shall waive the limitation in subsection
(a) with respect to a foreign country generally if the
Secretary determines that the application of the limitation
with respect to that country would impede cooperative
programs entered into between the Department of Defense and
the foreign country, or would impede the reciprocal
procurement of defense items entered into under section 2531
of this title, and the country does not discriminate against
defense items produced in the United States to a greater
degree than the United States discriminates against defense
items produced in that country.''.
(2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply with
respect to--
(A) contracts entered into on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(B) options for the procurement of items that are exercised
after such date under contracts that are entered into before
such date if those option prices are adjusted for any reason
other than the application of a waiver granted under
subsection (i) of section 2534 of title 10, United States
Code (as added by paragraph (1)).
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of subsection (d) of
such section is amended by inserting ``for Particular
Procurements'' after ``Waiver Authority''.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment because of the
Department of the Navy's narrow interpretation of the Department of
Defense's April 1997 ``Determination and Waiver'' which was a first
step for the Department in breaking down unproductive and egregious
barriers for free trade.
This is a simple and straight-forward amendment which waives certain
defense items with respect to a foreign country if the Secretary of
Defense determines that country would impede cooperative programs
entered into the foreign country and the Department of Defense.
Additionally, it would waive protectionist practices if it is
determined it would impede the reciprocal procurement of defense items
in that foreign country and that foreign country does not discriminate
against defense items produced in the United States to a greater degree
than the United States discriminates against defense items in that
country. This amendment would apply to all contracts entered into on or
after the date of enactment, including any option for the procurement
of items under a contract that are entered into before the date of
enactment if those option prices are adjusted for any other reason.
I have spoken of this issue before in this Chamber and the potential
impact on our bilateral trade relations with our allies because of our
policy toward ``Buy America''. From a philosophical point of view, I
oppose these type of protectionist trade policies because I believe
free trade is an important component of improved relations among all
nations and a key to major U.S. economic growth.
From a practical standpoint, adherence to ``Buy America''
restrictions seriously impairs our ability to compete freely in
international markets for the best price on needed military equipment
and could also result in a loss of existing business from long-standing
international trading partners. While I fully understand the arguments
by some to maintain certain critical industrial base capabilities, I
find no reason to support domestic source restrictions for products
which are widely available from many U.S. companies, that is, pumps
produced by no less than 25 U.S. companies. I believe that competition
and open markets among our allies on a reciprocal basis provide the
best equipment at the best price for U.S. and allied militaries alike.
There are many examples of trade imbalances resulting from
unnecessary ``Buy America'' restrictions. Let me cite one case in
point. Between 1991 and 1994, the Netherlands purchased $508 million in
defense equipment from U.S. companies, including air-refueling planes,
Chinook helicopters, Apache helicopters, F-16 fighter equipment,
missiles, combat radios, and training equipment. During the same
period, the United States purchased only $40 million of Dutch-made
military equipment. In recent meetings, the Defense Ministers of the
United Kingdom and Sweden have apprised me of similar situations. In
every meeting, they tell me how difficult it is becoming to persuade
their Governments to buy American defense products, because of our
protectionist policies and the growing ``Buy European'' sentiment.
Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that this amendment will end
once and for all the anticompetitive, antifree trade practices that
encumber our Government.
amendment no. 834
(Purpose: To convert the one-time report on aircraft inventory to an
annual report)
Strike out section 1037, and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
SEC. 1037. REPORT ON AIRCRAFT INVENTORY.
(A) Requirement.--(1) Chapter 23 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Sec. 483. Report on aircraft inventory
``(a) Annual Report.--The Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives each year a report on the aircraft
in the inventory of the Department of Defense. The Under
Secretary shall submit the report when the President submits
the budgets to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31.
``(b) Content.--The report shall set forth, in accordance
with subsection (c), the following information:
``(1) The total number of aircraft in the inventory.
``(2) The total number of the aircraft in the inventory
that are active, stated in the following categories (with
appropriate subcategories for mission aircraft, dedicated
test aircraft, and other aircraft):
``(A) Primary aircraft.
``(B) Backup aircraft.
``(C) Attrition and reconstitution reserve aircraft.
``(3) The total number of the aircraft in the inventory
that are inactive, stated in the following categories:
``(A) Bailment aircraft.
``(B) Drone aircraft.
``(C) Aircraft for sale or other transfer to foreign
governments.
``(D) Leased or loaned aircraft.
``(E) Aircraft for maintenance training.
``(F) Aircraft for reclamation.
``(G) Aircraft in storage.
``(4) The aircraft inventory requirements approved by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
``(c) Display of Information.--The report shall specify the
information required by subsection (b) separately for the
active component of each armed force and for each reserve
component of each armed force and, within the information set
forth for each such component, shall specify the information
separately for each type, model, and series of aircraft
provided for in the future-years defense program submitted to
Congress.''.
``(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such
chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:
``483. Report on aircraft inventory.''.
``(b) First Report.--The Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) shall submit the first report under section 483
of title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)),
not later than January 30, 1998.
``(c) Modification of Budget Data Exhibits.--The Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) shall ensure that aircraft
budget data exhibits of the Department of Defense that are
submitted to Congress display total numbers of active
aircraft where numbers of primary aircraft or primary
authorized aircraft are displayed in those exhibits.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 835
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations
restricting the quantity of alcoholic beverages that is available
through Department of Defense sources for the use of Department of
Defense personnel overseas)
At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1075. RESTRICTIONS ON QUANTITIES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
AVAILABLE FOR PERSONNEL OVERSEAS THROUGH
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SOURCES.
(a) Regulations Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe regulations relates to the quantity of alcoholic
beverages that is available outside the United States through
Department of Defense sources including nonappropriated fund
instrumentalities under the Department of Defense, for the
use of a member of the Armed Forces, an employee of the
Department of Defense, and dependents of such personnel.
(b) Applicable Standard.--Each quantity prescribed by the
Secretary shall be a quantity that is consistent with the
prevention of
[[Page S7283]]
illegal resale or other illegal disposition of alcoholic
beverages overseas and such regulation shall be accompanied
with elimination of barriers to export of U.S. made beverages
currently placed by other countries.
Amendment No. 836
SEC. . REPORT TO CONGRESS ASSESSING DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN
SOURCES FOR CERTAIN RESISTORS AND CAPACITORS.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than May 1, 1998, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report--
(1) assessing the level of dependence on foreign sources
for procurement of certain resistors and capacitors and
projecting the level of such dependence that is likely to
obtain after the implementation of relevant tariff reductions
required by the Information Technology Agreement; and
(2) recommending appropriate changes, if any, in defense
procurement or other federal policies on the basis of the
national security implications of such actual or projected
foreign dependence.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``certain resistors and capacitors'' shall mean--
(1) fixed resistors,
(2) wirewound resistors,
(3) film resistors,
(4) solid tantalum capacitors,
(5) multi-layer ceramic capacitors, and
(6) wet tantalum capacitors.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment on
behalf of Senators Bingaman, Hollings, Hagel, and Kerrey, and myself
that would help clarify the implications of a recent trade agreement
for an industry of vital importance to our defense industrial base. The
amendment would direct the Pentagon to perform a study assessing
whether dependence on foreign sources for certain resistors and
capacitors is likely to increase to the point of raising national
security concerns as a result of the tariff reductions scheduled to
take effect pursuant to the Information Technology Agreement (ITA).
The ITA was signed last December in Singapore and will phase in zero-
tariff treatment for semiconductors, telecommunications equipment,
computers, software, and other electronics products in North America,
the European Union, Australia, Japan, and many other countries in the
Asia-Pacific region. Domestic producers of resistors and capacitors
have expressed concern to many Senators that the elimination of the 6
percent duty on resistors and 9.4 percent duty on capacitors would
seriously undermine the vitality, and perhaps viability, of their
operations. The Pentagon is a major purchaser of these products. For
this reason, the industry's concerns warrant a more thorough
investigation of the implications of the tariff reductions for national
security than has occurred to date.
One of the manufacturing facilities affected by the Information
Technology Agreement is Dale Electronics, which is located in Yankton,
SD. The Dale plant employs about 400 people and manufactures resistors,
inductors, and magnetics. Like my colleagues who have cosponsored this
amendment, who also represent major facilities constituting an
important part of our defense industrial base, I would like to know
more about how the tariff changes underway will affect defense
preparedness. No doubt, the estimated 20,000 people working in the
passive electronics industry would also appreciate having the benefit
of this information.
I would like to express my appreciation to the distinguished manager
of the bill, Senator Thurmond, for working with me and my colleagues on
this issue. I know that he shares our interest in bringing to light
facts necessary for the Federal Government to make informed decisions
about important aspects of our defense industrial base.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, just before final action here, I want to
take this opportunity to thank all the Republicans and all the
Democrats for the fine cooperation they have given through the
consideration of this bill. The Congress can pass no more important
bill than this defense authorization legislation. It means our very
protection. It is important to the Nation and I am so pleased that we
are able, now, to go forward and pass this bill promptly.
Mr. President, I ask for third reading of the bill.
En Bloc Amendments Nos. 753 as modified, 607 as modified, 605 as
modified, 762, 763, 772
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that all the pending
amendments were agreed to en bloc.
Amendments Nos. 753 as modified, 607 as modified, 605 as modified,
762, 763, 772 were agreed to en bloc.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further amendment to be
proposed, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Thurmond and all the
Republican subcommittee chairs, the Democrats on our side, ranking
members, our staffs, and thank the rest of our colleagues for their
understanding.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able ranking member,
Senator Levin, for the fine job he has done on this bill. I wish to
thank also the subcommittee chairmen who have done such a good job
here, and all others who have participated here and helped us bring
this bill to conclusion.
Now, Mr. President, we have had third reading of the bill, as I
understand it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. THURMOND. The bill having been read a third time, I urge passage
of the bill. 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 bill having been read the third time, the
question is: Shall the bill pass? 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]
and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily
absent.
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 4, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--4
Feingold
Harkin
Kohl
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--2
Mikulski
Rockefeller
The bill (S. 936), as amended, was passed.
[The text of S. 936, as amended and passed, can be found at the end
of the Senate proceedings in today's Record.]
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.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 936, as
amended, be printed as passed. I further ask unanimous consent that
Senate Report No. 105-29, the report of the Committee on Armed Services
on S. 924, be deemed to be the report of the committee accompanying S.
936, the bill just passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, with respect to H.R. 1119, the House-
passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 1998, I
[[Page S7284]]
ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration, that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the
text of S. 936, as passed, be substituted in lieu thereof; that the
bill be advanced to third reading and passed; and the title of S. 936
be substituted for the title of H.R. 1119; that the Senate insist on
its amendments to the bill and the title and request a conference with
the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses and the Chair be
authorized to appoint conferees; that the motion to reconsider the
above-mentioned votes be laid upon the table; and that the foregoing
occur without any intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 1119), as amended, was deemed read the third time and
passed.
The title was amended so as to read:
A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for
military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for
such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.
There being no objection, the Presiding Officer (Mr. Hagel) appointed
Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Warner, Mr. McCain, Mr. Coats, Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Santorum, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Roberts, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Byrd, Mr.
Robb, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Cleland conferees on the part of the
Senate.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent with respect to
S. 936 as just passed by the Senate that, if the Senate receives a
message with respect to this bill from the House of Representatives,
the Senate disagree with the House on its amendment or amendments to
the Senate-passed bill and agree to or request a conference, as
appropriate, with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees and the foregoing
occur without any intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in closing, I want to take this
opportunity to thank the majority leader, Senator Lott, and the
minority leader, Senator Daschle, for their fine cooperation throughout
the consideration of this bill. And, Mr. President, I want to take this
opportunity to thank Mr. Brownlee of the majority staff and Mr. Lyles
on the minority staff, and finally the superb work of the fine floor
staff that has been so helpful. They have all rendered yeoman service
in the consideration and passage of this bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me again congratulate Senator
Thurmond for the tremendous work that he put into this bill and the
success of this bill. The strong vote that it got --I believe 94
votes--in the U.S. Senate is a real tribute, I think, to the work that
Senator Thurmond, as our chairman, has put in on this bill. I
congratulate him for it.
I also want to thank all the members of the committee for their work.
Again, our staffs, David Lyles of our staff on this side and Les
Brownlee on the Republican side, our Republican and Democratic leaders,
the majority leader, and the Democratic leader were extremely helpful,
and they again made it possible for us to complete this bill, I think,
in very good order and with very great speed. To the members of our
floor staff, thanks to all of them for making it possible for us to
move with such great dispatch on a very complicated bill.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. I wish to again thank Senator Levin for his fine
cooperation and all that he did to promote this bill. He did a
magnificent job.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I, too, would like to compliment the
Senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, for his leadership, as
well as Senator Levin, for moving this bill through, and in addition to
that, Senator Lott and Senator Daschle.
This bill had great potential for not only taking all this week, but
all of next week. I compliment the leaders for making this happen, to
get this bill completed, as the majority leader announced at the
beginning of the week that we were going to finish this on Friday
before we adjourned. And we did. I think that is very important.
I also think that the vote is very positive. To have 94 votes for
final passage on a defense bill I think is very positive indeed.
____________________