[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 99 (Monday, July 14, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7404-S7407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

[[Page S7405]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, again, I will state to the Senate we 
are awaiting any amendments that may be offered to this bill, the 
Defense appropriations bill for 1998. And if we do not soon have one, 
we will take that as an indication that there are no amendments and 
move to third reading.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
call of the quorum be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, what is the pending order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending order is S. 1005, the armed 
services appropriations bill.


                           Amendment No. 839

(Purpose: To correct the source of the funding provided in the bill for 
       procurement of digital terrain systems for F-16 aircraft)

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk in 
behalf of Senator Mikulski, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Ms. Mikulski, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 839.

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

       On page 29, line 15, strike out ``$6,375,847,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$6,390,847,000''.
       On page 33, line 16, strike out ``$14,142,873,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$14,127,873,000''.

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, this amendment was considered by the 
Senate in the authorizing session. It was cleared by the Senate and I 
ask the Appropriations Committee to incorporate that in the bill. It 
has been cleared by both sides.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this corrects the account in which this 
money was supposed to appear. There is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 839) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 840

 (Purpose: To provide $4,500,000 for an authorized joint Department of 
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs 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)

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Mr. Dodd of Connecticut and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Dodd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 840.

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

       On page 32, line 25, after ``1999'' insert the following: 
     ``: Provided, That, of the amount appropriated under this 
     heading, $4,500,000 is available for a joint Department of 
     Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs 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''.

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, this amendment was considered during the 
debate of the authorization bill and it provides $4.5 million for 
Persian Gulf illness treatment. It has been cleared by both sides, 
Madam President.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is no objection to this amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 840) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 841

   (Purpose: To earmark $5.0 million from the funds appropriated for 
 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide for a facial 
                    recognition technology program)

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk for Mr. 
Kennedy of Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 841.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 34, before the period on line 3, add the following: 
     ``: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, $5,000,000 shall be available for a facial 
     recognition techology program''.

  Mr. INOUYE. This amendment has been cleared by the authorizing 
committee. It has been cleared by both managers.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is no objection to the Kennedy amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 841) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 842

    (Purpose: To increase by $2,000,000 the amount appropriated for 
   research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense, in order to 
    provide for a joint service core research program to develop a 
 prototype hybrid integrated sensor array for chemical and biological 
                            point detection)

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk in 
behalf of Ms. Snowe and Ms. Collins and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for Ms. Snowe, for 
     herself and Ms. Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 842.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 34, line 3 at the appropriate place insert the 
     following: ``: Provided, That, $2,000,000 shall be made 
     available only for a joint service core research project to 
     develop a prototype hybrid integrated sensor array for 
     chemical and biological point detection.''

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this amendment earmarks $2 million for 
a project that was inserted into the Defense authorization bill by 
amendment in this last week's consideration. We ask for its 
consideration.
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 842) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, and the ranking 
minority members, Senator Inouye, for accepting this very crucial 
amendment which I have proudly cosponsored with Senator Snowe.
  With the recent proliferation of chemical weapons and the increasing 
uncertainty of rogue nations' ability to wage chemical and biological 
war, I strongly believe that this additional $2 million in funding is 
essential to properly address this very serious threat.
  A joint service core research program will make possible the 
development of a prototype hybrid integrated sensor array for chemical 
and biological point detection for personnel use on the battlefield. 
While it is my hope that some day sensors of this type are not 
necessary, until such time, I will continue to ensure that our service 
men and women are not left unaware or unprotected.

[[Page S7406]]

  Again, I extend my sincere thanks to Senator Stevens and Senator 
Inouye for supporting this critical amendment and I thank my fellow 
Maine colleague, Senator Snowe, for her leadership on this matter as 
well.


                           Amendment No. 843

    (Purpose: To earmark $6.0 million of the funds appropriated in 
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide for a 
            conventional munitions demilitarization program)

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Sessions, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 843:
       On page 34, before the period on line 3, add the following: 
     ``: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, $6,000,000 shall be available for a conventional 
     munitions demilitarization demonstration program''.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, this amendment would appropriate 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 nationwide 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.
  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 2,800 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 particulate 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 
seemingly unlimited amount of material, we must take advantage now of 
new technologies in the R&D stage to compliment the current OM/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.

  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 that 
will be managed every step of the way with safety of the operation and 
concern for the community as its 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 data upon 
which the JOCG can make full-scale development decisions for other 
locations in the country.
  Today, TOW missile 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.
  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 
above and allows the military additional flexibility in destroying some 
of those munitions even as the demonstration matures. Noise measurement 
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.
  In sum, the people of this Nation should not have to wait for the 
perfect system to evolve when a very good system is currently on hand 
and available to demonstrate that it can do the job for which it was 
designed more efficiently. Our environment will not wait; the munitions 
will not wait, and the people should not have to wait for the slow 
wheels of government to find the perfect solution. 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.
  Madam President, I would like to personally thank Senator Stevens for 
his support and for including this important DOD appropriations bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this amendment shifts $6 million to 
cover a demonstration project that was authorized by the Defense 
authorization bill pursuant to an amendment offered by Senator 
Sessions.
  Mr. INOUYE. This has been cleared on the Democratic side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 843) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 844

    (Purpose: To reduce to $1,000,000 the threshold amount for the 
applicability of the requirement for advance matching of Department of 
            Defense disbursements to particular obligations)

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Grassley.

[[Page S7407]]

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

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Grassley, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 844.

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

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec.   . Effective on June 30, 1998, section 8106(a) of the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I 
     through VIII of the matter under section 101(b) of Public Law 
     104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-111; 10 U.S.C. 113 note), is amended 
     by striking out ``$3,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``$1,000,000''.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I understand the committee is prepared 
to accept my amendment on Department of Defense [DOD] disbursements.
  My amendment is simple and straightforward.
  It says that each disbursement made by the DOD over $1 million must 
be matched with the correct obligation before payment is made.
  It also says that this threshold must be met by June 30, 1998.
  This is the next, logical step in a process that began with section 
8137 of the fiscal year 1995 DOD Appropriations Act.
  My amendment is fully consistent with the policy first adopted in 
1994.
  This policy has been developed under the leadership of my friend from 
Alaska, Senator Stevens, and my friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye.
  This policy has been incorporated in the last three appropriations 
bills--fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997.
  The policy is embodied in section 8106 of the current law.
  The current law says that all disbursements over $3 million must be 
prematched. That's down from $5 million the previous year.
  What we are trying to do is gradually ratchet down the dollar 
thresholds. I think there is a general consensus for cranking down the 
thresholds. The DOD inspector general [IG], Ms. Eleanor Hill, has said 
we need to do it.
  This is what she said in a letter to the committee Chairman:

       We agree with the plan to continue lowering the dollar 
     threshold for prevalidation of all contract payments made by 
     DOD.

  Mr. Richard Keevey, Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service [DFAS] has said exactly the same thing but in stronger terms.
  This is what Mr. Keevey said in testimony before the Governmental 
Affairs Committee on May 1:

       To prevent future problem disbursements, the department 
     will require that every disbursement be prevalidated, that 
     is, matched to an obligation before payment is made. . . . 
     Our ultimate goal is to validate all disbursements to zero.

  DOD has a plan for meeting the dollar thresholds set in law.
  There is one small problem, however. The problem is at DOD's major 
contract payment center at Columbus, OH. DOD says the Columbus center 
cannot meet the $1 million threshold until June 1999. When we launched 
this policy back in 1994, DOD claimed it would be years before it could 
make the required matches.
  Well, despite all the bureaucratic roadblocks, DOD found a way to get 
the job done. DOD is making the matches today.
  Second, meeting the $1 million threshold should be no big deal.
  With all of DOD's cutting edge technology, it should be a piece of 
cake. DFAS Columbus processes no more than 11,000 payments annually 
that exceed the $1 million threshold.
  That's chicken feed, Madam President.
  Banks, for example, routinely handle 500,000 account matching 
operations in a single day. So why can't DOD do it? DOD seems to be 
working hard to meet the dollar thresholds mandated by Congress. I feel 
like the momentum is in the right direction.
  But recent GAO and IG audits clearly indicate we still have a long 
way to go. There's still much more work to be done.
  My amendment will help to keep the pressure on. It will help the 
Department reach the ultimate goal: to validate every disbursement 
prior to payment.
  Until we reach that goal, DOD's financial accounts will remain 
vulnerable to theft and abuse.
  Madam President, I thank the chairman and ranking minority member for 
their leadership and support on this issue.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, Senator Grassley and the Defense 
Comptroller, Mr. Hamre, have been negotiating concerning this subject. 
It will reduce the deviation ceiling and billing for the Department of 
Defense on June 30, 1998, to $1 million. It is being offered by me on 
behalf of Senator Grassley with the understanding that the Department 
of Defense does concur in this amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 844) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, that was the work product of our hot-
line so far. We are trying to work out amendments as they are received. 
Again, we urge that Members bring their amendments to the floor and 
notify us of their intention to do so. At this time, we only know of 
one amendment that is to be forthcoming. My understanding is that that 
Senator will present it soon. Meanwhile, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________