[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7436-S7447]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume consideration of S. 
1005, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1005) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and 
     for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Stevens-Inouye Amendment No. 846, to require a report to 
     Congress on all anticipated costs to the United States for 
     the admission of the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary to 
     NATO.
       Harkin Amendment No. 848, to prohibit the use of taxpayer 
     funds to underwrite restructuring costs associated with a 
     business merger.


                           Amendment No. 849

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

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mrs. Hutchison, 
     for herself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. McCain, Mr. Warner, 
     Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Levin, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 849.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) International efforts to bring indicted war criminals 
     to justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina consistent with the 1995 
     Dayton Accords should be supported as an important element in 
     creating a self-sustaining peace in the region;
       (2) The Administration should consult closely with the 
     Congress on all efforts to bring indicted war criminals to 
     justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina consistent with the 1995 
     Dayton Accords; and
       (3) The Administration should consult closely and in a 
     timely manner with the Congress on the NATO-led Stabilization 
     Force's mission concerning the apprehension of indicated war 
     criminals, including any changes in the mission which could 
     affect American forces.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides and is now acceptable to the managers of the bill. I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Texas.
  The amendment (No. 849) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S7437]]

  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 850

 (Purpose: To make available funds for the payment of claims for loss 
 and damage to personal property suffered by military personnel due to 
                    flooding in the Red River Basin)

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

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for Mr. Dorgan, for 
     himself, and Mr. Conrad, proposes an amendment numbered 850.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Up to $4.5 million of funds available to the 
     Department of Defense may be available for the payment of 
     claims for loss and damage to personal property suffered as a 
     direct result of the flooding in the Red River Basin during 
     April and May 1997 by members of the Armed Forces residing in 
     the vicinity of Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, 
     without regard to the provisions of section 3721(e) of title 
     31, United States Code.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I offer today with my colleague from North 
Dakota, Senator Dorgan, an amendment that would prevent unintended 
discrimination against Grand Forks AFB personnel as the Defense 
Department provides compensation for personal property losses incurred 
as a result of this spring's unprecedented flooding in the Red River 
Valley. This legislation has been requested by Air Force Secretary 
Sheila E. Widnall, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ronald R. Fogleman, 
and the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Transportation Command, Gen. 
Walter Kross, with the support of Gen. Howell Estes, Commander in Chief 
of the U.S. Space Command.
  As my colleagues are aware, last week I offered this amendment to the 
fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization bill with Senators Dorgan, 
Wellstone, Johnson, and Daschle. It was accepted by the Armed Services 
Committee, but I look forward to its inclusion in the fiscal year 1998 
Defense appropriations bill before us as well. This will ensure that 
both defense measures passed by the Senate this year are in agreement 
that disaster relief must be provided to personnel on an equitable 
basis.
  As I have discussed on the Senate floor on several occasions, Mr. 
President, this winter and spring were the most severe in my State's 
history, culminating in a 500-year flood. Damages to property stretched 
into the billions, and the disruption to families and the community was 
incalculable.
  Confronted with a disaster of almost Biblical proportions, the able 
men and women of Grand Forks AFB helped fight the flood. They manned 
``sandbag central,'' helped evacuate the city of Grand Forks, and 
provided shelter, food, and comfort to thousands of flood refugees. 
Many Air Force officers and enlisted personnel worked tirelessly, even 
as their homes were washed away, resulting in almost total personal 
property losses.
  Fortunately, current law allows the Defense Department to provide 
personal property compensation to personnel once personal insurance and 
any other Federal assistance has been exhausted. Separate compensation 
from the military is appropriate, Mr. President, in light of the fact 
that servicemembers, their families, and their property have been put 
in harm's way as a result of assignment orders. Those residing in Grand 
Forks AFB housing are currently able to benefit from this assistance.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, we have a catch 22 problem. The 
families that suffered the most--those living off-base in the city of 
Grand Forks because of on-base housing shortages--are getting no help. 
This is because existing law prevents ``Federal agencies from paying 
claims for losses incident to service which occurs at residences not 
provided by the United States,'' to quote an Air Force analysis.
  Mr. President, the men and women of Grand Forks AFB were there when 
their country needed them. The amendment I have offered here again 
today would ensure that their country does not allow them to endure 
unfair and unintended discrimination in their hour of need. It would 
waive the provision that prevents them from receiving assistance. This 
action would be consistent with earlier legislation passed in 1992 on 
behalf of Homestead AFB personnel living off-base who had suffered as a 
result of Hurricane Andrew.
  On behalf of the more than 700 Air Force families living in the city 
of Grand Forks when the levees broke, I would like to extend my thanks 
again to the Senate and the able leadership of the Armed Services 
Committee for passing this amendment last week. Today, sincere thanks 
should also go to the distinguished leadership of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, to Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye, 
for their willingness to work with Senator Dorgan and myself to bring 
the authorization and appropriations measures into agreement on this 
important matter.
  Before closing, Mr. President, I would like to recognize again the 
exemplary work of everyone at Grand Forks AFB during this spring's 
flooding. In accepting thousands of flood refugees at the worst of the 
disaster, the base provided warm, safe housing for countless families. 
They also provided something else, something even more important--a 
sense of hope that has helped preserve Grand Forks' sense of community. 
At a time when nearly the entire city was submerged by the rising 
floodwaters and its most historic areas burned, the importance of this 
cannot be overstated.
  Again, Mr. President, let me thank the committee and the Senate for 
their careful consideration of this amendment, which will ensure that 
all Air Force personnel in the flooded area are treated equitably. I 
look forward to its approval as part of the fiscal year 1998 Defense 
appropriations bill, retention in conference, and passage into law.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to comment briefly on my flood 
relief amendment, which is now pending to the defense appropriations 
bill.
  As my colleagues know, this spring the Red River Valley suffered its 
worst flooding in recorded history. Personnel at Grand Forks Air Force 
Base pitched in to fight the flooding that everyone knew would come--
they helped operate ``Sandbag Central'' to enable volunteers to go to 
the front lines on the dikes.
  When the water finally won, a 500-year flood emptied Grand Forks, ND, 
a city of 50,000 people, and sent 4,000 residents to the Grand Forks 
Air Force Base for shelter. Many of my colleagues saw on television the 
base hangar that was converted to a shelter and that provided refuge 
for those citizens.
  What my colleagues may not know is that many of the base personnel 
who fought the flood for weeks were themselves victims of the flood 
when it came. Over 700 military personnel were forced to evacuate 
during this disaster. And 406 servicemembers have suffered losses to 
personal property, including 95 families whose homes were inside the 
diked area near the Red River and were extensively damaged.
  However, without the flood relief authority my amendment would 
provide, these servicemembers will be victims of unintended 
discrimination.
  If these servicemembers had lived on base, they would be eligible to 
file a claim with the Department of Defense for losses incident to 
service. The Air Force pays such claims pursuant to section 3721 of 
title 31 of the United States Code. But as the law now stands, military 
personnel living off base are not eligible to file such claims, even 
though they are stationed at Grand Forks Air Force Base as a result of 
their military service.
  My amendment would simply permit the Air Force to reimburse these 
servicemembers for their losses despite the fact that they lived off 
base. It makes available up to $4.5 million of the funds already 
available to the Department of Defense for paying claims.

[[Page S7438]]

  Let me assure my colleagues that this amendment supplements private 
insurance and benefits provided by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency. Air Force claims practices and FEMA regulations prohibit 
duplicative benefits. Military members who have private insurance will 
be required to file claims against that insurance before the Air Force 
will pay claims under this amendment.
  I understand that this amendment is acceptable to the Chairman, 
Senator Stevens, and to the ranking member, Senator Inouye. I thank 
them very much for their support of this amendment, and for the work of 
their staffs in clearing this amendment.
  I look forward to this amendment's approval by the Senate, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment is supported by the 
Department of the Air Force, and we are prepared to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 850) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. 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.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in the order pertaining to this bill that 
was agreed to last evening, there is a second Dorgan amendment that I 
am authorized to withdraw. I ask that it be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. Is the amendment I have offered 
together with my friend from Hawaii, No. 846, still the pending 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would observe that the amendment 
pending before the body is amendment No. 848 offered by the Senator 
from Iowa.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is there also pending behind that 846?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                           Amendment No. 851

(Purpose: To set aside $36,000,000 of O&M funds for an authorized Navy 
   program to demonstrate expanded use of multi-technology automated 
   reader cards throughout the Navy and the Marine Corps, including 
 demonstration of the use of the so-called ``smartship'' technology of 
            the ship-to-shore worked load/off load program)

  Mr. STEVENS. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator 
Robb of Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Robb, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 851.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8099. Of the total amount appropriated under title II 
     for the Navy, the Secretary of the Navy shall make 
     $36,000,000 available for a program to demonstrate expanded 
     use of multitechnology automated reader cards throughout the 
     Navy and the Marine Corps, including demonstration of the use 
     of the so-called ``smartship'' technology of the ship-to-
     shore work load/off load program.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, last evening the Senator from Hawaii and 
I discussed this amendment with the Senator from Virginia. We are 
convinced that it will bring about savings of taxpayer funds and that 
it should be adopted at this time.
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Virginia.
  The amendment (No. 851) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. 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. 846

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the 
Senate my amendment No. 846.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself, and Mr. 
     Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 846.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Alaska.
  The amendment (No. 846) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. 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.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have now pending, under the orders 
agreed to last evening, the Feinstein amendment on land transfer, a 
Feinstein amendment on NATO expansion cost caps, the Graham amendment 
on electronic combat testing, the pending Harkin merger cost amendment 
No. 848, a managers' amendment from Senator Inouye, and one for myself, 
which we will join together, and two McCain amendments, one dealing 
with foreign flag vessels, and one ``Buy America'' amendment.
  I urge Members of the Senate to come and offer their amendments. We 
are asked by leadership to see if it is possible to finish this bill 
before the recess for the Tuesday meetings of both parties. The Senator 
from Hawaii and I are prepared to try to do that if Members would come 
and offer their amendments.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 852

                 (Purpose: To strike out section 8097)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 852.
       Strike out section 8097.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment strikes section 8097 from 
the Defense appropriations bill in its entirety.
  This provision has nothing to do with national security issues. It is 
purely and simply an example of pork-barrel spending that has nothing 
to do with defense.
  The provision earmarks $250,000 for the maritime technology program. 
Do not be deceived by the amount of money. The $250,000 is the 
beginning of what could turn into a multimillion-dollar bailout for a 
cruise ship line and ships to be constructed in a certain shipyard.
  The money would be used to establish a pilot project to transfer 
commercial cruise shipbuilding technology to U.S. shipyards--on its 
face it is an innocuous idea, even though it doesn't have a lot to do 
with national defense or anything--utilizing the experience of U.S. 
flag cruise ship operators, and protecting the operation of a foreign-
built U.S. flag cruise ship and two newly constructed U.S. flag cruise 
ships around the Hawaiian Islands.
  The last goal of the pilot project is, I suspect, the most important 
and most disturbing aspect of the program.
  As I mentioned, this provision only earmarks $250,000. I also 
mentioned that money has nothing to do with defense.
  The Maritech Program is a very limited program, and this $250,000 
earmarked represents a large portion of available Maritech funds.
  I suspect very strongly that this is not the end of the drain on 
defense dollars for this cruise ship program. I fully expect to see 
millions of dollars set aside to build these cruise ships and 
subsequent bills, whether it is the Commerce, State, Justice 
appropriations bill this year or in next year's defense appropriations 
bill.

[[Page S7439]]

  If the past is any indicator, this is just the beginning of a 
multimillion-dollar waste of defense dollars.
  Was the Commerce Committee asked to review this proposal? No.
  Should the Commerce Committee have been asked to review this program? 
Yes.
  This provision waives three established laws:
  One, it bypasses the established process for reviewing the Jones Act, 
Passenger Service Vessel Act, and coast-wise endorsement waivers.
  Ordinarily, the Commerce Committee considers action on each requested 
waiver. This legislation did not come before the Commerce Committee and 
effectively waives these laws for an unidentified foreign-built cruise 
ship.
  In my view, should the Commerce Committee approve this proposal as 
written? No.
  Frankly, that is the precise reason this provision is in this bill 
and not in the Commerce Committee bill.
  I wonder if anyone can tell me exactly how many cruise ship operators 
can meet the exact criteria spelled out in the provision of the bill.
  I quote:

       $250,000 should be made available to assist with a pilot 
     project that will facilitate the transfer of commercial 
     cruise shipbuilding technology and expertise, and enable the 
     operation of a U.S. flag foreign-built cruise ship and two 
     newly constructed U.S. flagships.
       That a person (including a related person with respect to 
     that person) within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. Section 801, may 
     not operate a U.S. flag foreign-built cruise ship, or any 
     other cruise ship, in coastwise trade between or among the 
     islands of Hawaii, upon execution of the contract referred to 
     in this section and continuing throughout the life expectancy 
     . . . of a newly constructed U.S. flag cruise ship referred 
     to in this section, unless the cruise ship is operated by a 
     person that is . . . operating a cruise ship in coastwise 
     trade between or among the islands of Hawaii on the date of 
     enactment, except if any cruise ship constructed pursuant to 
     this section operates in regular service other than between 
     or among the islands of Hawaii.
       Provided further, That for purposes of this section, the 
     term ``cruise ship'' means a vessel that is at least 10,000 
     gross tons . . . and the berth or stateroom accommodations 
     for at least 275 passengers.

  Mr. President, the list goes on and on.
  This is really unacceptable. This is really unacceptable.
  In my view, I understand there is only one cruise ship operator in 
Hawaii that can meet this criteria. Only one. And that operator is 
being handed a 30-year to 40-year monopoly for his existing business.
  How many times has the U.S. Senate so blatantly set up a monopoly set 
aside for any individual or business? Why would we want to start now? 
On the very rare occasions that Congress has permitted a monopoly 
operation, such as Conrail, it was to ensure availability of adequate 
domestic transportation in the absence of any other possible viable 
alternative.
  I personally know of no other monopoly operation other than the 
Conrail example.
  Many of my colleagues in this Chamber profess to be concerned about 
the growing consolidation in the defense industry, expressing worry 
that overconsolidation will lead to monopolies in the defense industry.
  I have long been a free trade advocate, and I believe in our existing 
review. Why wouldn't that same concern about unfair anticompetitive 
restrictions apply in this case? Why is this legislative monopoly 
necessary?
  The current operator of this cruise ship operation in Hawaii has 
operated for many years without this legislative protection. He is 
protected from foreign competition under existing laws and does not 
need the protection of Congress to replace his existing ship with new 
ships.
  What is the urgency of including this language in this defense 
appropriations bill, or, for that matter, in any other bill?
  Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that this provision was 
inserted in this bill. But it is not necessary. It wastes defense 
dollars, and it sets up an ill-considered monopoly for one single 
entity.
  Mr. President, if this amendment is not stricken from the bill and it 
survives conference with the House, I would strongly recommend that the 
President of the United States, in the exercise of his line-item veto 
authority, eliminate this egregious example of pork-barrel spending.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, 40 years ago the United States shipping 
interests controlled the Mediterranean. Most of the cruise ships in the 
Mediterranean, if I may remind my colleagues, were made in the United 
States. They had crews of American sailors, and we carried passengers 
not only from the United States but all over the world.
  At the same time, we also dominated and controlled the cruise ship 
industry in the Caribbean. The same is true in the Pacific. For that 
matter, 40 years ago the United States shipping interests sailed the 
seven seas and controlled the seven seas.
  Today, we have one company that has one cruise ship. No shipyard has 
ever made a cruise ship since 1956. That is 40 years. For 40 years, our 
shipyards have not built a cruise ship. Today, we have one, an old 
ship.
  And what is the situation? The fastest growing part of the tourist 
industry of the world is cruise ships. We see that on television every 
night, every 30 minutes on just about every channel--love boats, 
holiday boats, and most of the passengers are American. These cruise 
ships are built in foreign shipyards, and they are manned by foreign 
sailors.
  It may interest you to know that just last week the Wall Street 
Journal reported that cruise ship workers on foreign flag vessels work 
between 16 to 18 hours a day and get paid by the cruise lines about 
$1.50 a day before tips--$1.50 a day before tips. That is their take-
home pay because the cruise ship owner says, well, he has a free bunk; 
we give him three meals a day. This is gravy for him, $1.50 a day.
  That is why we cannot compete with them. We insist that all of our 
ships maintain the highest health standards. Wage and hour provisions 
that apply here in the Nation's Capital will apply on cruise ships 
manned by Americans. The cruise ships operating in the Hawaiian waters 
today pay not minimum wage but union declared wages. They are much, 
much higher than union wage, and they get paid more than $1.50 an hour.
  Many of us felt that the time had come to stop this, to reinvigorate 
the industry, and we came up with this plan. This plan reminds us of 
what happened to the United States in World War II--for that matter in 
World War I--the Korean conflict, and even in Vietnam. Since we do not 
have a fleet of troop carriers, we have always had to call upon private 
shipowners to come forth with their passenger vessels, convert them 
into troop carriers, and sail the seven seas.
  Mr. President, as a young man of 18, I crossed the Pacific on a 
luxury cruise ship which was converted into a troop carrier. Going 
across the Atlantic, I am sorry to say, it was not a cruise ship; it 
was a tanker, but there were many other cruise ships in operation at 
that time.
  This program, the Meritech Program, has been authorized. It has been 
operational. And up until now they have come up with plans on how to 
bring about the construction by private industry of passenger vessels 
that can be converted for defense purposes if the need should arise. 
This provision in this bill is to implement those plans.
  I can assure you, if the Senator from Arizona wishes, we will put in 
clear language that says this ship will be built with private funds. I 
can assure one and all that if this will satisfy my friend from 
Arizona, I would like this language put in the appropriate place: 
``Provided further, that none of the funds provided in this or any 
other act may be obligated for the construction of vessels addressed by 
this section.''
  If it is appropriate, I ask that this provision be made part of the 
bill before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will ask, does the Senator ask 
unanimous consent----
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. To place the appropriate language in the 
legislation?

[[Page S7440]]

  Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, I just want to clarify, I understand that----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. My reservation is as follows. My understanding is that 
the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii are willing to 
modify the language of the bill that states that no Federal money will 
be spent for the construction of a cruise ship or the tooling up of a 
shipyard for that construction. If that is correct, then I appreciate 
the agreement of the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from Alaska 
and we will make that change and propose that change shortly.

  Is that the intent of the Senator from Hawaii?
  Mr. INOUYE. That is the intent of the language. I believe the 
language is clear.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside my amendment at this 
time and we will revisit it when the language, modifying language is 
made up, and I will at that time make a motion to modify my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have another amendment at the desk.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Does it mean that 
the McCain amendment is set aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is it the intention of the Senator from Hawaii 
under the UC agreement that his legislation has been modified under the 
previous UC request?
  Mr. INOUYE. The Presiding Officer is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there is a little bit of a parliamentary 
situation here. It is not clear to me whether the language of the 
legislation will be modified--and then I would ask unanimous consent to 
drop my amendment--or is it language that will be added to the 
amendment which would then be acceptable? I would ask the President as 
to what the parliamentary situation is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend for a moment.
  If there is no objection, the unanimous consent request by the 
Senator from Hawaii will be considered as an amendment to the bill by 
the Senator from Alaska. Upon passage, then the Senator from Arizona 
could be recognized to withdraw his amendment.


                           Amendment No. 854

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


       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 854.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert: ``: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds provided in this or any other Act may 
     be obligated for the tooling to construct or the construction 
     of vessels addressed by this section''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 854) was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 852, withdrawn

  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, the 
pending McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then the amendment No. 852 is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 852) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 853

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to waive limitations 
 applicable to uses of funds for procurements from foreign sources as 
               necessary to protect cooperative programs)

  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have another amendment at the desk, and 
I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 853.

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

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8099. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall waive 
     generally with respect to a foreign country each limitation 
     on procurements from foreign sources provided in law 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 arrangements for the 
     reciprocal procurement of defense items entered into under 
     section 2531 of title 10, United States Code, or under any 
     other provision of law, 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.
       (b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
       (1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised 
     after such date under contracts that are entered into before 
     such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason 
     other than the application of a waiver granted under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding 
     construction of warships.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is a simple and straightforward 
amendment that simply levels the playing field between U.S. and foreign 
manufacturers. This amendment promotes U.S. products, not by enforcing 
restrictive barriers on open competition and free trade, but by 
promoting sound and beneficial economic principles.
  This amendment waives restrictions on the procurement of certain 
defense items with respect to a foreign country if the Secretary of 
Defense determines they would impede cooperative programs entered into 
between a 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 and subcontracts entered into on 
or after the date of enactment, including any option for the 
procurement of items 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 longstanding 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 United States 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

[[Page S7441]]

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. I only look forward to the day when my trips 
to the floor to highlight Buy America provisions are no longer 
necessary.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial by Secretary 
Weinberger and Dr. Schweizer that appeared in today's USA Today be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From USA Today, July 15, 1997]

         Pentagon Lopping Off Military Muscle in Favor of Pork

             (By Caspar W. Weinberger and Peter Schweizer)

       In 1938, the British Royal Navy counted 308 ships on its 
     active roster, and Great Britain ruled the waves. This 
     massive armada required 11,270 admiralty officials and 
     clerical staff for its management. Thirty years later, the 
     British Navy was down to just 114 ships, a decline of more 
     than 60%. However, the number of brass hats and 
     administrators had increased to 33,574. At its peak, the 
     British Navy required 37 desk sailors per ship. At its low 
     point, 295.
       C. Northcote Parkinson tracked these trends and proclaimed 
     what eventually became known as one of Parkinson's famous 
     laws: The number of subordinates increases at a fixed rate 
     regardless of the amount of work produced. What was true for 
     a declining Britain is applicable to present-day America. Fat 
     in the military bureaucracy continues to expand at the 
     expense of military muscle. Congressional action to limit 
     further base closings last week and the recently released 
     Quadrennial Defense Review does nothing to correct this 
     dangerous reality. The Pentagon is putting the best possible 
     light on further reductions of 60,000 active-duty troops, 
     arguing that cuts are necessary in order to procure more 
     advanced weapons. But choosing between force size and 
     weaponry is a lose-lose situation. We need both large forces 
     and advanced weapons to maintain our battlefield edge and 
     minimize U.S. casualties. What we need to cut is fat.
       Just how badly has our military ``muscle'' been affected? 
     The stated policy of the United States is to be able to fight 
     two wars at once. But as Professors Frederick Kagan and David 
     Fautua of the United States Military Academy point out, we 
     would have trouble fighting and winning one war today. 
     Consider our victory in Desert Storm. The United States 
     committed seven active Army divisions, three Marine Corps 
     divisions and two additional combat brigades from other units 
     to the ground war. Of the seven Army divisions, five were 
     ``heavy'' units--mechanized and armor. We were able to build 
     this force from a total of 18 Army divisions. Now we have but 
     10 Army divisions, and only six are ``heavy.'' Many are 
     already committed to other overseas assignments such as Korea 
     and, therefore, would be unavailable for a regional conflict.
       Since Desert Storm, defense spending has declined 24% in 
     constant dollars, and manpower has been cut 27%. The Navy has 
     lost 34% of its ships. Air Force tactical squadrons have been 
     cut by 28%. Budget cuts also have led to a reduction in 
     our overseas presence. By 2000, about 90% of our combat 
     power will be based in the continental United States. Lack 
     of funds means we may not even reach the battlefield. The 
     Army's capability to deploy forces has dropped 44% and the 
     Navy's support ships, critical for overseas operations, 
     have been slashed 61% since 1991.
       But budget cuts not only have led to force reductions. 
     Existing units have been dramatically hurt by serious 
     training deficiencies. At Camp Pendleton, Marines have 
     trekked 17 miles to training ranges to conserve truck fuel 
     and tires. Air Force personnel are now regularly deployed 
     overseas well beyond the recommended 120-day maximum, causing 
     serious psychological and training problems. Some tank crews 
     have been forced to park their tanks and conduct training 
     dismounted, walking around pretending to be tanks, in order 
     to cut costs.
       The great paradox is that this small and grossly 
     underfunded military has been called on to increase its 
     overseas operations. Our two post-Cold War commanders-in-
     chief--Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton--have 
     dispatched troops abroad more often than the United States 
     did in the previous 20 years. The military has conducted 
     expensive operations in Haiti, Rwanda, Liberia, Cuba, Panama, 
     Southwest Asia, Iraq and Somalia. Rather than deal with this 
     squeeze, the defense review calls for further reductions.
       The military has already borne a disproportionate share of 
     cuts and now accounts for less than 20% of the federal 
     budget. Of the federal jobs lost since fiscal 1992, more than 
     89% have come from the Department of Defense. Rather than 
     cutting forces as the defense review recommends, troop levels 
     should be maintained at present levels. Savings should come 
     from cuts in civilian personnel and nondefense programs, not 
     out of the military's core competence of fighting wars. Today 
     the Pentagon spends more than 40% of this budget on 
     infrastructure, running cafeterias and day-care centers and 
     paying accountants. The only portions of the budget that have 
     grown since the end of the Cold War have been for the Defense 
     Logistics Agency, which handles warehousing, inventory 
     control and the transport of supplies, and the Defense 
     Finance and Accounting Service, which manages payroll and 
     budget. Many of these functions could be privatized. The 
     Pentagon estimates privatization could save $14 billion. 
     Others put the savings at $30 billion.
       Reductions also could come from programs that have been 
     foisted on the Pentagon that have nothing to do with defense. 
     About $28 billion is being spent on environmental compliance 
     and cleanup. Millions are going to a jobs program that 
     updates the Bay Area Rapid Transit System. These programs may 
     be worthwhile, but they shouldn't be funded with scarce 
     defense resources.
       The defense review fails to deal with the underlying 
     resource problems that plagues the military. Let's prove 
     Parkinson wrong by preserving our military capability and 
     lopping off the fat.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe that this amendment is 
acceptable to the managers of S. 1005. I have discussed this with the 
Senators from Alaska and Hawaii and both staffs. Basically, as I said, 
it gives discretion to the Secretary of Defense as far as restrictive 
Buy America provisions are concerned. This amendment gives the 
Secretary of Defense the kind of latitude that is necessary in order to 
make sure that our national security and warfighting capability is 
protected.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. We find no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding this is quite similar to a 
provision that is already in the armed services bill. And under those 
circumstances we have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? 
Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 853) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from 
Alaska for their cooperation and assistance on both amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. It is my understanding the Harkin 
amendment is ready to go to a vote at any time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending question before the 
Senate.
  Mr. STEVENS. We still have three amendments that could be offered 
before the lunch hour, and that is the Feinstein amendments and the 
Graham amendment.
  Mr. President, there is in the order a managers' package that enables 
me to offer an amendment. I do offer the amendment. It is the only item 
in this managers' package. It is the amendment of the Senator from 
Indiana [Mr. Coats].


                           Amendment No. 855

  (Purpose: To set aside for the Information System Security Program 
 $15,708,000 of the amount provided for the Army for other procurement)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk for Mr. 
Coats 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 Mr. Coats, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 855.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 24, line 6, after ``2000'' insert the following: 
     ``: Provided, That, of the amount appropriated under this 
     heading, $15,708,000 is available for the Information System 
     Security Program, of which $5,500,000 is available for 
     procurement of Airterm KY-100 devices''.


[[Page S7442]]


  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this conforms this bill to an authorized 
account that was added to the authorization bill when it passed the 
Senate, and I urge its immediate adoption.
  Mr. INOUYE. We concur.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 855) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. 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.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I implore Senators Feinstein and Graham 
to offer their amendments. We are ready to proceed. I think we could 
finish the bill before the lunch hour. I see the Senator from Texas is 
on the floor, and I yield the floor to her in the hope she will yield 
the floor to the others if they arrive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 849

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I assure the distinguished chairman, 
if the other two pending amendments' authors come to the floor, I will 
yield.
  I wanted to speak about an amendment that has just been agreed to. 
The chairman offered the Hutchison-Lott-Lieberman-McCain-Warner 
amendment earlier. It is something we have been working on, actually, 
for the last few days, trying to come up with language that everyone 
could support. In fact, everyone has now agreed to support it, so it is 
a sense of the Senate with 100 percent approval of language that says 
we are very concerned about the situation in Bosnia, we are concerned 
about the indicted war criminals not being brought to justice. All of 
us are concerned about that, because, under the Dayton accords, the 
three parties to the agreement, the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Muslims, 
and the Croats, were supposed to do that and it has not happened.
  At the same time, our amendment states that the administration should 
consult closely and in a timely manner with the Congress on the NATO-
led Stabilization Force's mission concerning the apprehension of 
indicted war criminals, including any changes in the mission which 
could affect American forces. I think this is a very responsible 
statement for the Senate to make because it is very important if there 
is a change in mission with regard to the apprehension of war criminals 
and if American forces are going to be involved, that the Congress 
understand that fully because that is not our understanding today nor 
is it part of the Dayton accords.
  So, having been burned in Somalia when there was mission creep 
without the complete accord of Congress, I think it is important that 
we learn from history and take the responsible role that Congress 
should take.
  I am concerned that we do this in a very, very clear thinking, 
responsible way. I look at the Washington Times from this morning where 
the headline is, ``Serbs Threaten End Of Dayton Pact.'' It has a quote 
from an ex-teacher--an ex-teacher. He says: ``I used to wave to them, 
the NATO troops, and had my little daughter wave when they pass by. But 
now I told her to spit at them.''
  I think we have to understand that what we do has consequences. I 
hope NATO will carefully look at how we go about changing any kind of 
mission. Certainly we expect, in Congress, to have a role in that. But 
I also think it is important that we go back to the Dayton accords. The 
Dayton accords provide the three parties will apprehend war criminals. 
I hope that is what happens, because there were heinous crimes 
committed--heinous crimes. No civilized nation, no civilized person 
could look at what happened in Srebrenica--it was clearly an 
assassination of men and boys. It was ethnic cleansing. That's what it 
actually was. We ought to stand against that. We do stand against it.
  But, let's make sure that as we go forward we do it in a measured, 
responsible way so what we do is helpful, that we keep the Dayton 
accords, and that we do not have mission creep with American troops 
that would put them in harm's way, or in a combat situation if they are 
not prepared--if we are not prepared--for that eventuality.
  So I think we have taken a responsible step. I appreciate the work of 
the chairman. I appreciate the work of the Democrats and Republicans on 
this issue where we do want to speak with a unified voice. It is 
important that we do. That is what we have done today.


                     passenger safety modifications

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman and the 
committee for adding funds for passenger safety modifications for the 
Air Force. The committee's initiative is both timely and appropriate 
and recognizes the need to provide the most up-to-date available safety 
equipment to aircraft transporting our military personnel. I would like 
to clarify a point with the chairman. Mr. Chairman, is the $75 million 
added by the committee for aircraft passenger safety modifications to 
be sent on the acquisition of navigation and safety equipment to 
initiate phase II of the Defense Department's initiative to modify 
military passenger aircraft? Is it the intent of the committee that 
this additional funding be spent on the following equipment and 
technologies: enhanced Ground Proximity warning Systems [EGPWS] with a 
digital terrain data base, Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance 
Systems [TCAS], predictive windshear radar, cockpit voice recorders, 
and flight data recorders?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. The Air Force has indicated 
specifically that EGPWS and TCAS for selected aircraft are part of the 
phase II modifications. The Air Force also has unfunded requirements 
for flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders. The committee 
appreciates the Senator's interest and leadership on this issue.


                UH-60L BLACK HAWK IN THE NATIONAL GUARD

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would greatly appreciate it if my 
colleagues, the chairman of the appropriations Committee and the 
ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee would join 
with me in a colloquy regarding the committee's support for a 
firefighting demonstrator kit for the UH-60L Black Hawk helicopter for 
the Army National Guard. It is my understanding that the Army National 
Guard needs and wants improved capability on its UH-60L Black Hawk 
helicopter to enable them to more effectively augment the firefighting 
capabilities of State and local government other Federal agencies.
  To this end, the Army is pursuing a cooperative research and 
development agreement or CRADA with Sikorsky Aircraft to obtain this 
demonstrator aircraft. Once received, this modified Black Hawk will be 
used in a 3-month, National Guard, operational suitability test with 
the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am aware of this firefighting demonstration kit for 
the Black Hawk helicopter. I agree that this program should be treated 
as any other item of special interest in the National Guard and Reserve 
Miscellaneous Equipment account, and am happy to support the Senator 
regarding this issue.
  Mr. INOUYE. I, too, am a strong supporter of this firefighting kit. 
California is especially hard hit, each year, by wildfires and I fully 
understand the great resources necessary to battle these fires. I am 
happy to join with the chairman of the committee in urging that this 
program be given high priority in the National Guard and Reserve 
miscellaneous equipment account.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank both the Chairman and the ranking member for 
their interest in this program and their support.


                           Amendment No. 856

 (Purpose: To express the Sense of Congress regarding cost-sharing for 
                           NATO enlargement)

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

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mrs. Feinstein, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 856:

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.    . SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the Sense of Congress that should the Senate ratify 
     NATO enlargement, current proportional cost-sharing 
     arrangements will remain in place and that the proportional 
     cost of the U.S. share of the NATO common budget should not 
     increase.


[[Page S7443]]


  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
the Defense appropriations bill which expresses the Sense of Congress 
that U.S. payment for the cost of NATO enlargement is contingent on our 
NATO allies' willingness to pay their fair share of the costs of NATO 
enlargement as well.
  I was concerned and surprised to read French President Chirac's 
statement last week that ``France does not intend to raise its 
contribution to NATO because of the cost of enlargement.''
  Mr. President, we all know that NATO enlargement will cost money. And 
those costs must be borne fairly by all members.
  If France or Germany or any other member of NATO is unwilling to pay 
its fair share, then this seems to me to be a faulty foundation for the 
expansion of NATO.
  Indeed, as an article in the July 14-20 issue of Defense News stated:

       Its decision to admit new members threatens to tear the 
     Western alliance asunder if the European allies fail to 
     shoulder a larger proportion of NATO's future security costs, 
     according to U.S. and European diplomats and analysts.

  The purpose of this amendment is to make clear that the United States 
is willing to pay its share of the cost of NATO enlargement. No more. 
No less.
  But this amendment also makes clear that if the Europeans are 
unwilling to pay their share of the costs, then the United States will 
not pay either.
  The bottom line is that the costs should be fairly met and paid for 
by all Alliance members. The United States can not and should not pick 
up the share of European countries unwilling to do their part.
  This amendment, I believe, sends a strong message to our European 
allies as we enter into the NATO enlargement process that if we are to 
enlarge the alliance it must be done fairly, and it must be done right.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the pending 
Feinstein amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Rescinding Action on Amendment 856

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I find I acted prematurely. I ask the 
past action be rescinded and the Feinstein amendment remain the pending 
measure before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will take that under consideration.
  Upon considering the request by the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska, without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1005, the 
Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. The pending bill 
provides $247.2 billion in total budget authority and $244.4 billion in 
total outlays for the Department of Defense. There are some major 
elements to this bill that are important programs for the Senate to 
review.
  According to preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget 
Office, the bill, as reported, is within the Defense Subcommittee's 
section 602(b) allocation and, thus, complies with the requirements of 
the Budget Act.
  The bill is fully consistent with the bipartisan balanced budget 
agreement. Senators may have heard or read statements to the contrary, 
but I can assure them that the bill in no way transgresses the 
agreement. I can also assure Senators that any misunderstanding in the 
administration about this matter is in the process of being clarified.
  The bill fully funds certain important initiatives that were 
requested by the President, including a 2.8 percent pay raise for all 
military personnel and the end strengths for all of the active and 
reserve military services. The bill also funds needed increases in each 
of the major accounts of the defense budget.
  The Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, and the 
Subcommittee staff deserve the thanks of the Senate for their extremely 
skillful crafting of this bill. It makes the best possible use of the 
defense funds available and sustains our national defense posture 
consistent with the Defense Department's new roadmap, the Quadrennial 
Defense Review.
  I strongly support this bill, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Senate Budget Committee 
table displaying the budget impact of this bill be placed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                S. 1005, DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 1998--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL               
                                         [Fiscal year 1998, $ millions]                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Defense  Nondefense    Crime   Mandatory    Total 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:                                                                                           
  Budget authority.........................................   246,981  ..........  ........        197   247,178
  Outlays..................................................   244,202          7   ........        197   244,406
Senate 602(b) allocation:                                                                                       
  Budget authority.........................................   246,988  ..........  ........        197   247,185
  Outlays..................................................   244,232          7   ........        197   244,436
President's request:                                                                                            
  Budget authority.........................................   243,698         27   ........        197   243,922
  Outlays..................................................   243,409         31   ........        197   243,637
House-passed bill:                                                                                              
  Budget authority.........................................  ........  ..........  ........  .........  ........
  Outlays..................................................  ........  ..........  ........  .........  ........
                                                                                                                
             SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:                                                                  
                                                                                                                
Senate 602(b) allocation:                                                                                       
  Budget authority.........................................       (7)  ..........  ........  .........       (7)
  Outlays..................................................      (30)  ..........  ........  .........      (30)
President's request:                                                                                            
  Budget authority.........................................     3,283       (27)   ........  .........     3,256
  Outlays..................................................       793       (24)   ........  .........       769
House-passed bill:                                                                                              
  Budget authority.........................................   246,981  ..........  ........        197   247,178
  Outlays..................................................   244,202          7   ........        197   244,406
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping  
  conventions.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                

  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor and 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Pilot Program Tagging Hydrocarbon Fuels

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to enter 
a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Stevens. As the chairman knows, title III, subtitle 
C, section 339 of the recently adopted Defense authorization bill 
provides for the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program to 
determine if hydrocarbon fuels used by the Department of Defense can be 
tagged for analysis and identification. Mr. President, $5 million was 
authorized to conduct this program.
  Mr. STEVENS. My distinguished colleague from Texas, Senator 
Hutchison, who ably serves on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 
is correct.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is anticipated that this program will deter theft, 
aid in the investigation of fuel theft, and facilitate determining the 
source of surface and underground pollution in locations where the 
Department and civilian companies maintain separate fuel storage 
facilities.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct in her description of this 
program as approved by the authorizing committee and the full Senate.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is my understanding that this pilot program could 
also be funded through title IV of the pending bill, research, 
development, test, and evaluation, particularly the Defense-wide 
funding provisions.
  Mr. STEVENS. Again, the Senator is correct on the likely source of 
funding for this pilot program.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I look forward to learning the results 
of this pilot program and thank my distinguished chairman for his able 
assistance. I yield the floor.

[[Page S7444]]

                       Vote on Amendment No. 848

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair 
place before the Senate the Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
pending question is the Harkin amendment No. 848. It is not necessary 
for the clerk to report the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the rollcall vote that was agreed to last 
evening take place now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
848. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] and 
the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 15, nays 83, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]

                                YEAS--15

     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Kohl
     Moynihan
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--83

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     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
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Burns
     Chafee
       
  The amendment (No. 848) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. 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.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we continue 
for another 5 minutes on a matter of total agreement here and that we 
then have a vote on final passage on this bill at 2:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 857

 (Purpose: To limit the use of funds to transfer more than 10 electro-
    magnetic test environment systems from Eglin Air Force Base, FL)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk 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 Mr. Graham, for 
     himself and Mr. Mack, proposes an amendment numbered 857.

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

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8099. (a) Congress finds that the Defense Base Closure 
     and Realignment Commission directed the transfer of only 10 
     electro-magnetic test environment systems from Elgin Air 
     Force Base, Florida, to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment also has the cosponsorship 
of Senator Mack. It has our approval.
  Mr. INOUYE. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 857) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. 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.


                     Amendment No. 856, As Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send a modification of amendment No. 
856 to the desk.
  This is a modification of an amendment by Senator Feinstein that was 
previously adopted, and that action was rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 856 is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 856), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert:
       ``It is the Sense of Congress that should the Senate ratify 
     NATO enlargement, that the proportional cost of the U.S. 
     share of the NATO common budget should not increase, and that 
     if any NATO Member does not pay its share, the United States 
     shall not either.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. STEVENS. The amendment now has our approval. It is a sense-of-
the-Senate amendment concerning payment of NATO costs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 856), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. 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.


                           Amendment No. 858

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding DOD printing 
                                 costs)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk 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 Mr. Bumpers, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 858.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.  . FINDINGS.

       (a) the Department of Defense budget is insufficient to 
     fulfill all the requirements on the unfunded priorities lists 
     of the military services and defense agencies;
       (b) the documented printing expenses of the Department of 
     Defense amount to several hundred million dollars per year, 
     and a similar amount of undocumented printing expenses may be 
     included in external defense contracts;
       (c) printing in two or more colors generally increases 
     costs;
       (d) the Joint Committee on Printing of the Congress of the 
     United States has established regulations intended to protect 
     taxpayers from extravagant government printing expenses;
       (e) the Government Printing and Binding Regulations 
     published by the Joint Committee on Printing direct that, 
     ``... it is the responsibility of the head of any department, 
     independent office or establishment of the Government to 
     assure that all multicolor printing shall contribute 
     demonstrable value toward achieving a greater fulfillment of 
     the ultimate end-purpose of whatever printed item in which it 
     is included.''
       (f) the Department of Defense publishes a large number of 
     brochures, calendars, and other products in which the use of 
     multicolor printing does not appear to meet the demonstrably 
     valuable contribution requirement of the Joint Committee on 
     Printing, but instead appears to be used primarily for 
     decorative effect; and
       (g) the Department of Defense could save resources for 
     higher priority needs by reducing printing expenses:
       Therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that:
       (1) the Secretary of Defense should ensure that the 
     printing costs of the Department of Defense and military 
     services are the lowest amount possible;
       (2) the Department of Defense should strictly comply with 
     the Printing and Binding Regulations published by the Joint 
     Committee on Printing of the Congress of the United States.
       (3) that the Department of Defense budget submission for FY 
     1999 should reflect the savings that will result from the 
     stricter printing guidelines in (1) and (2).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Bumpers 
amendment?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 858) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S7445]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that all of the 
amendments that were ordered to be called up, or had the right to be 
called up under order 108 entered into last night have now been 
disposed of. Is that the opinion of the Chair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It appears that the amendments on that list 
have been offered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I know of no further amendments.


               United States Military Presence in Bermuda

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last week I had worked out an amendment with 
the managers of the national defense authorization bill that provided 
for the Secretary of Defense to study and report on the status of 
environmental problems in Bermuda associated with the United States 
military presence on that island for more than 50 years. Senator 
Inhofe, the subcommittee chairman was particularly helpful in working 
with me.
  Inadvertently that amendment was not included in the managers en bloc 
amendment package on Friday afternoon. However, I am very grateful to 
the chairman and ranking member of the Arms Services Committee that, by 
unanimous consent, they have agreed to include this amendment in the 
authorization bill.
  Mr. President, for more than 50 years, United States military 
personnel were deployed to bases on the Island of Bermuda. In fact, 
United States bases occupied approximately one-tenth of Bermuda's land 
area. The 1941 Leased Bases Agreement formalized the conditions under 
which the United States military remained in Bermuda until 1995. The 
United States was not charged a penny in rent for its use of these 
properties during all of that period.
  I know that the distinguished ranking member of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Inouye, is fully aware of the 
questions that have been raised related to the United States military 
presence in Bermuda. I would ask him whether he believes that this is 
something that the Secretary of Defense should look into?
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague from 
Connecticut that I am aware of matters related to the bases in Bermuda. 
I know, for example, that the bases in Bermuda very effectively 
contributed to United States. national security during World War II and 
throughout the cold war. I am also aware that with changed world 
circumstances, it became clear during the 1990's, that it was no longer 
necessary for the U.S. military to continue to maintain bases there. 
And, on September 1, 1995, U.S. military forces formally withdrew from 
the island.
  Certainly it seems very logicial for the Secretary of Defense to be 
asked to look into matters related to our presence there.
  Mr. DODD. Mr President, I know that my distinguished colleague from 
Hawaii knows well that Bermuda is actually a tiny group of islands, 21 
square miles in land area. Its environmental situation is unique in 
many respects--land is obviously scarce, fresh water resources are very 
limited, and storage capacity for hazardous waste disposal doesn't 
exist. It is also one of the most northerly coral reef areas, making 
the marine environment surrounding the island extremely fragile as 
well.
  Mr. President, I call to the attention of my distinguished colleague 
from Hawaii that it would appear that the formerly United States 
occupied properties that have now reverted back to Bermudian 
authorities could pose a number of problems for that Government--
problems that they are now seeking our help in ameliorating. These 
problems include soil and ground water pollution and asbestos hazards 
contained in now deserted U.S. military installations on the bases.
  For example, most of the buildings on the bases will require 
demolition, if this property is to be useable again. That means that 
the hazardous asbestos must also be removed and appropriately stored. 
In addition, industrial wastes and raw sewage that were disposed of in 
Bassett's Cave over time will pose a threat to parts of the island's 
water system unless they are removed. Underground and above-ground 
petroleum storage tanks--many in poor condition--are leaking into 
surrounding soils and ground water. Left behind landfills are also 
causing environmental problems.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Connecticut 
that I believe that President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and others 
in this administration care deeply about environmental issues. Clearly 
the United States cannot resolve every environmental problem that 
exists in every part of the globe. However, under the circumstances, 
given the special relationship between the United States and Bermuda, 
it is particularly appropriate for the Secretary of Defense to study 
this problem and report back to the relevant committees. I will look 
forward to reading that report.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii for his 
interest in this matter. I too look forward to being kept informed 
about progress on this issue.


                           QDR IMPLEMENTATION

  Mr. BENNETT. The Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR] outlined a 
direction for the Air Force to consolidate force structure and reduce 
manpower. Included in the QDR is a proposal to transfer one active duty 
fighter wing to the reserve forces. General Fogleman recently informed 
me that the Air Force was specifically exploring a number of options to 
accomplish this directive.
  Because of the changes that may occur as the Department of Defense 
downsizes, I would expect the Air Force to alert Congress as important 
decisions are made, and will outline the rationale behind their 
conclusions. Is it the chairman's expectation that this will be the 
case?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator raises a good point. I would expect the Air 
Force to inform Congress of major decisions, such as the one to which 
the Senator was referring. I would also expect the Air Force to be able 
to outline sound reasons for their actions.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, as the Air Force determines where fighter 
units will be located, these decisions will inevitably impact how our 
test and training ranges are utilized. Consequently, I believe it would 
also be reasonable for the Air Force to outline how changes in force 
structure will impact the use of test and training ranges.
  Mr. STEVENS. I believe this is a reasonable request, and I expect the 
Air Force to outline impacts of test and training range utilization as 
a result of changes in force structure to the Congress.


                  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LEGACY PROGRAM

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Members of the Senate may have read in the 
papers a few weeks ago about the discovery of a Revolutionary War 
gunboat found in the waters of Lake Champlain, bordering my home State 
of Vermont. There, perfectly preserved in the cold, fresh, dark water, 
lying upright on the bottom, is a 54-foot gunboat, its mast still 
standing and its bow cannon in place.
  This gunboat is one of eight led by Benedict Arnold against the 
British in the Battle of Valcour Island on October 11, 1776. Only four 
vessels survived the battle, but the British were forced to delay their 
invasion from Canada for an extra year, giving the Americans critical 
time to prepare defenses.
  Mr. President, this historic find led the former curator of naval 
history at the Smithsonian's American History Museum, Mr. Philip 
Lundeberg, to say, ``This could prove to be the most significant 
maritime discovery in American history in the last half century.''
  The exact location of the ship is a secret, and it will not be 
touched until maritime archeologists, working with the Navy and local 
authorities, develop a comprehensive management plan to preserve and 
protect this amazing discovery. The ship may be left as an underwater 
museum, or it may be feasible to raise and preserve it. We will not 
know until the management plan is completed.
  In the bill before the Senate today, the Appropriations Committee 
funded a modest program called Legacy, which coordinates cultural 
resource management efforts among the four military services. I ask my 
friend from Alaska, will the Senator support my effort in conference 
with the other body to designate a small amount of Legacy funding to 
develop the management plan that will preserve and protect this 
important historical find?

[[Page S7446]]

  Mr. STEVENS. This discovery is one of the great military history 
finds in memory, and I believe that we have an obligation to ensure 
that this ship is properly preserved. This type of discovery is why the 
committee created the Legacy Program in 1991, under the leadership of 
the senior Senator from Hawaii. I strongly support the proposal of the 
Senator from Vermont, and I am hopeful that his view will prevail in 
conference.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator for his consideration.


                   Operation and Maintenance Account

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
manager of this bill, Senator Stevens, in a colloquy concerning the 
funding of the operation and maintenance account for the Department of 
the Army.
  For some time, I have been concerned about the deteriorating 
conditions of the historic buildings at the Walter Reed Army Medical 
Center Annex at Forest Glen, MD. In response to my amendment to the 
National Defense Authorization Act last year, the Department of the 
Army recently submitted a Comprehensive Plan for the Basic Repair and 
Stabilization for the Historic District of the Forest Glen Annex. This 
plan identified the need for $9.8 million in fiscal 1998 to take care 
of the critical needs for stabilization of the historic buildings at 
the Forest Glen Annex.
  I want to inquire whether there is sufficient funding within the 
Army's real property maintenance account to implement this plan.
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, the committee has provided additional funding in 
the amount of $87.5 million to address the funding shortfall in the 
Army's real property mainenance account. Recognizing that the Army has 
prioritized its real property maintenance shortfalls, I am confident 
that the Department will work with you to address your concerns 
regarding the Annex.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support the recommendations of the defense 
subcommittee for the Department of Defense Appropriations measure for 
FY 1998. The $247.2 billion recommended for the programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee is within the subcommittee's 
allocation in both budget authority and outlays, and is $1.2 billion 
below the amount authorized by the Senate for these programs in the 
Authorization bill which was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate last 
week. The recommendations have been unanimously supported by all 
members of the Defense Subcommittee, an event which is noteworthy, and 
is a reflection on the judgment, experience and abilities of the 
distinguished leadership of the subcommittee, my friend, the Chairman, 
the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and the senior Senator from 
Hawaii, the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Inouye.
  The bill is noteworthy for the consensus that underlies it, and the 
Senate is fortunate to have these two senior Senators, with vast 
experience in defense matters, at the helm of our post-war defense 
spending. Central elements of American leadership in the post-cold-war 
world are the readiness, capabilities and further development of our 
military forces, present in all major regions of the world, exercising 
leadership in Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific. While the 
agenda for American leadership will change, and is changing, we have 
witnessed, several times in this century, the risk that abdicating such 
a leadership role can entail. The need for such leadership is a jointly 
held responsibility of the Administration and the Congress. It is clear 
that America is not retrenching radically from its commitments and its 
far-flung presence as a result of the end of the cold war, in some 
historical variance with the practice of our nation in times of peace 
in the past.
  Mr. President, the quality of life and the need to attract excellent, 
motivated people for the armed forces is a critical ingredient of our 
long-term success in carrying out our commitments. I note that the 
Subcommittee has produced recommendations with a top priority of fully 
supporting our men and women in uniform, including funding for a 2.8 
percent pay raise for military personnel.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill, worthy of the strong support of 
the Senate. It is the product of a truly bi-partisan process, and comes 
with the unanimous support of the members of the Appropriations 
Committee. I commend the leadership of that Committee, and the capable 
staff of Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye in putting this bill 
together.


                       allowability of esop costs

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska in a brief colloquy, not just in his capacity as 
floor manager of the fiscal year 1998 Defense appropriations bill, but 
also as a leading proponent of the legislation that created employee 
stock ownership plans [ESOP's].
  Mr. President, the Defense Contract Audit Agency [DCAA] is 
threatening the viability of ESOP defense contractors by applying 
different determinations of ESOP costs than the Internal Revenue 
Service and the Department of Labor. It is my understanding that 
Congress intended that ESOP cost issues be governed by the tax and 
pension laws and regulations administered by those offices, not DCAA. 
If this matter is not resolved when the defense appropriations 
conference committee meets, would the distinguished chairman be willing 
to try to assist in resolving it at that point?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania for recalling that I was an original sponsor of the 
legislation that encouraged companies to become employee-owned by 
establishing ESOP's. I will certainly try to do what I can to help 
solve the situation the Senator has described.


                        research and development

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose 
of engaging my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee and the distinguished ranking minority 
member, in a colloquy regarding support for evolving telemedicine 
technologies, research and development on an advanced double hull ship 
design and research and development of the helicopter vectored trust 
ducted propeller.
  Mr. President, we all recognize the need to continue efforts to 
develop telemedicine services for our Armed Forces. I note in 
particular, efforts by institutions in the Northeast to design a 
telemedicine trauma/emergency medical services system to provide 
necessary diagnostic and treatment interventions and improve medical 
outcomes.
  Advanced research and development for the Navy is vital to ensure 
force readiness and capability for our Navy well into the future. The 
Navy is currently facing a technical challenge in design and 
manufacture of very large and complex structural systems that have 
historically been made of traditional steel materials but are now 
incorporating the use of more advanced materials like non-magnetic 
steels. Currently, there is no comprehensive initiative in the Navy to 
develop the most promising application of these new materials--a 
nonmagnetic, stainless steel advanced double hull warship design. The 
marriage of the advanced double hull concept with nonmagnetic steels 
offers the potential to reduce acquisition costs and improve 
survivability. I support a development program for the stainless steel 
advanced double hull concept that combines numerical analysis 
techniques with large-scale representative testing.
  Mr. President, in another area of military research and development, 
I point out the survivability and cost-effectiveness benefits from use 
of vectored ducted propeller helicopter technology. Research and 
development of this design will ensure that our Armed Forces are 
prepared for the next century. I look forward to working with my two 
colleagues during conference to address these programs.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania. These are three very important and valuable programs for 
the readiness and capability of our Armed Forces. I have long been a 
supporter of telemedicine initiatives and its application to military 
objectives. In addition, I recognize the need to continue research and 
development of advanced technology for hull and aircraft design. I 
believe these programs deserve a thorough review and look forward to 
working with the Senator from Pennsylvania in conference.

[[Page S7447]]

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I also thank the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania. Telemedicine, particularly those initiatives focused 
on emergency and trauma care are essential for the highest quality 
medical care for our troops. I too look forward to working with the 
Senator from Pennsylvania in conference.


                  PERSIAN GULF WAR ILLNESSES AMENDMENT

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues, Senator 
Stevens and Senator Inouye, for their work on this appropriations bill 
and the bipartisan spirit in which it was crafted.
  I wish to speak for a moment on the amendment I offered on Persian 
Gulf war illnesses that was accepted by the chairman and ranking 
member.
  The amendment will provide $4.5 million for the Department of Defense 
and the Veterans Administration to determine what treatments are 
working for those who are afflicted with Persian Gulf war illnesses.
  The reasonableness and necessity for action along these lines seem so 
obvious that many of my colleagues probably find it difficult to 
believe that such action has not already been taken. To allay their 
doubts, let me quote directly from a GAO report released just last 
month: ``There is an absence of efforts to measure Gulf War veterans 
clinical progress. This leaves the government unable to promptly 
determine the quality and effectiveness of treatments currently being 
provided to Gulf War veterans.''
  That's not an angry Senator making unsupported allegations. That's 
the objective, nonpartisan view of the General Accounting Office.
  Mr. President, at this point, it seems to me that we've left our 
ailing troops on the battlefield. Here we are, 6 years after the end of 
the Persian Gulf war and it takes an act of Congress to begin an 
effective examination of which treatments are most effective in caring 
for our veterans with Persian Gulf war illnesses.
  While I am heartened by the fact that we're offering examinations to 
those who served in the Persian Gulf War, I feel it's important to take 
the next step to determine what happens after that initial examination. 
Often I hear stories of families being forced to look outside the 
government agencies to get the care and compensation their Persian Gulf 
war veterans deserve.
  So those are the reasons that I offered the amendments to the Defense 
authorization bill and the Defense appropriations bill. Mr. President, 
nearly 700,000 men and women served in our Armed Forces in the Persian 
Gulf war. Five thousand of them were constituents of mine. Depending on 
what reports you read, as many as 10 percent of those who served are 
today ailing from some form or another of these Persian Gulf war 
illnesses. That's far too many to be left out on the battlefield. One 
ailing veteran forgotten by this country is too many. I expect to see 
some progress now on finding and employing effective treatments for 
those with Persian Gulf war illnesses.
  Let me again express my gratitude to the Senator from Alaska and the 
Senator from Hawaii for approving of this funding and accepting the 
amendment. I'm sure they feel equally compelled by the issues raised 
here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read 
the third time.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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 rollcall vote will occur at 2:15.

                          ____________________