[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.

                          ____________________