[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 81 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6662-S6693]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will connect what I say here about this 
piece of legislation with Father's Day. I had the occasion, during our 
last recess, to take my 23-year-old son and my 21-year-old daughter to 
Omaha Beach. I was in the audience on the 6th of June, 1994, in 
Antelope Park in Lincoln, NE, where, among other people, I heard at 
that time the senior Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon, and many 
other speakers talk about that day on the 6th of June, 1944, when very 
young men crossed the English Channel in the early morning and, as they 
approached the beaches of Normandy in France--now quite quiet, now 
nowhere near as hostile as it was on that morning--the bullets from the 
German trenches rained down upon the beach. And the soldiers, as they 
approached the beach that morning, could hear the bullets raking the 
front of their landing craft. Those of us who have experienced bullets 
raking in any environment at all understand the courage that it took to 
lower those gates and leave those boats, knowing that it was highly 
likely that they were going to be shot and that it was even a higher 
probability, in those early landing craft, that they would die.
  On the occasion that I took my son and daughter, this year, to Omaha 
Beach, I pointed out the crosses there in this very quiet, reverential 
place--that each one of them is a story. Each one of them is a son. 
Each one of them was either a potential father or perhaps was a father 
themselves, leaving behind grieving sons and daughters who remember 
that extraordinary service.
  So, on Father's Day I am apt, I suspect as many of us who have served 
are--apt to reflect, not only upon my father, but also upon the fathers 
who are no longer with us as a consequence of their service, as a 
consequence of their heroism, as a consequence of their courage. And I, 
as an individual, am always more impressed with the courage and the 
heroism that is done, as the distinguished Senator from West Virginia 
was describing in his own father, without any expectation that there 
would be a television camera recording the act, or a newspaper reporter 
writing it down, or any glory whatsoever, necessarily, coming to that 
individual.
  The most important act of heroism is that act of heroism that occurs 
when nobody is observing what you do. That is when character is built. 
That is when the strength of, not just the individual, but the strength 
of the Nation, comes through as well. These young men who landed on 
that beach on the 6th of June, 1944, knew that they perhaps would die 
with no one there recording what it was that they had done.
  I am struck, not just on Father's Day, but on many other days as 
well, how blessed we are as a result of the sacrifices that our fathers 
made for us and our forefathers made for us.
  As I begin my comments on this piece of legislation, I can't help but 
connect with what the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the 
senior Senator, was talking about earlier about fathers and sacrifice 
and the nobility of character that is developed in that moment when you 
do what your father told you to do. You follow not just the straight 
and narrow path, but often the most difficult path. My own father's 
most important lesson to me was that the easy road is apt to be the 
wrong road; the easy course is apt to be the wrong course. It is that 
difficult path that we very often must choose.
  I am here on the floor to make that observation about this particular 
piece of legislation, Mr. President, S. 2057, 35 titles, 412 pages. I 
came here as a former Governor, as a former businessperson, and the 
longer that I am on the job of writing laws, the more impressed I am 
that there is a connection between these laws and our lives. It may be 
that some of these words in this piece of legislation I disagree with, 
and I may come to the floor and try to change some of these words, but 
none of us should doubt that these words are important, that they 
create an authorization in law that enables us to have an Army, a 
Marine Corps, a Navy, an Air Force, and a Coast Guard. It frames for us 
and authorizes for us what we will need to defend our Nation.
  One of the things that I hear very often when I am talking to the 
citizens of my State whom I represent is they will say to me, ``Well, 
Senator, what threats are there? The cold war is over. For gosh sakes, 
what threats are there today to the people of the United States of 
America that would justify this expenditure, not just of money but of 
lives?''
  Understand, we are not just authorizing the creation of an Army, a 
Navy, a Marine Corps, an Air Force, and a Coast Guard, we are asking 
young men and women to come in and swear an oath to their country and 
defend the people and, if necessary, not only to risk their lives, but 
even to give their lives in a cause that we on this floor declared 
important, as we have done in Bosnia, as we have done throughout the 
world not just in this year but in past years.
  My answer is, unfortunately it was not readily apparent in the 1920s 
that there was a threat. Thus, Americans in the 1920s said, ``We have 
suffered enough in the Great War,'' the so-called war to end all wars. 
It was supposed to be the last war of mankind. We had a treaty at 
Versailles in 1919. It was believed that was all we had to do. So we 
came home and wrote laws in response to people saying, ``We've had 
enough.'' We wrote laws that downsized our military, that said there is 
no apparent threat in the 1920s, so we maintained just a skeleton 
force, if that.
  Mr. President, my father was a 6-year-old in Chicago in 1919, and 
little did he know that the move to demilitarize this Nation, the move 
to isolate this Nation, the move to say that we are going to take care 
of America first and only would result not just in his having to serve 
in the Army, and he was being prepared for the assault of Japan when 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were dropped and Japan surrendered, but 
his older brother, John, went to the Philippines expecting in 1941 to 
return happily a year later, but he was among those who were, on the 
8th of December, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, he 
was among those who were on the island in the Philippines unprepared 
for an attack--unprepared--and, as a consequence, they not only 
suffered the Bataan death march, but suffered horribly over the next 
few years.

  It may not be that we see a threat of enormous dimensions today, but 
this piece of legislation, I hope, prepares us for the threat that we 
don't see, for the threat that may occur tomorrow. I hope that we 
understand as we write this piece of legislation that there are men and 
women who are serving us in our Armed Forces.
  I know that the Armed Services Committee has written in to make 
certain that they are not only given a sufficient amount of resources 
to train and prepare themselves, but that they are given adequate 
housing and that they are given adequate health care and that they are 
given other things as a consequence of us knowing and understanding 
that they are serving us and putting themselves at risk in service to 
us.

[[Page S6663]]

  Another area that I think we also need to understand is that there is 
diplomacy that occurs simultaneously with our authorizing and preparing 
our defenses. One very important piece of diplomacy will occur next 
week when our President, our Commander in Chief, travels to the 
People's Republic of China, the largest nation on Earth, the most 
populous nation on Earth, still a Communist nation, still, in my 
opinion, suffering as a result of not having what we have, and that is 
the blessings of liberty, of a government of, by and for the people.
  I hope that on this defense authorization bill we will not make it 
more difficult for the President to engage in diplomacy. I hope that we 
are able to restrain ourselves. I know that there is interest in China. 
I know there will be amendments that will come to the floor, but I hope 
that we will not make diplomacy more difficult, Mr. President.
  Diplomacy is the effort that we make to say that we are going to do 
all we can, not just to keep our defenses strong to prepare for a 
threat we may not see today, not just to keep our defenses strong so we 
discourage bad behavior, but diplomacy is an effort we make to prevent 
wars from happening in the first place.
  To that end, I would like to comment a bit on some diplomacy. On 
Wednesday of this week, the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, 
gave a speech about Asia, and especially she commented about the need 
to change our policies carefully towards the nation of Iran.
  I rise, indeed, to note two important events in the often troubled 
relationship between the United States and Iran. One of these events, 
Secretary of State Albright's speech to the Asia Society on Wednesday 
night, and the other event is the World Cup soccer match in France 
between the teams of the United States and Iran. This event on Sunday 
is a far smaller event, but it is, nonetheless, still important. First, 
the speech of Secretary Albright is an intellectual event, and the 
second, the soccer match between the United States and Iran, is a 
physical event.
  The first deals with the sweep of history, the sweep of culture and 
religion, and the second takes place in the here and now. Yet, both, in 
my judgment, are major departures in a complex and extremely difficult 
relationship. At the level of Governments, the United States and Iran 
have disliked and suspected each other for 19 years. At the human 
level, Americans and Iranians have expressed their resentments towards 
the other country as they almost unconsciously grow closer to each 
other at the same time.
  Mr. President, with each passing year, and especially with events 
such as the election of President Khatami and the warm reception 
accorded to the American wrestling team in Iran, the gulf between our 
antagonistic Government-to-Government relations, and the more positive 
relations between the Americans and Iranians are becoming more 
apparent.
  Secretary Albright took an important first step Wednesday night 
towards closing that gulf. The importance is by no means diminished by 
the initial negative response that was heard yesterday on Iran's state 
radio. Secretary Albright recognized Mr. Khatami as the choice of 70 
percent of the Iranian voters, and that he embodies their desire for 
change for greater freedom, for a society based on the rule of law, for 
a more moderate foreign policy leading to an end of Iran's 
international isolation.
  She also noted that Mr. Khatami has started to change Iranian 
policies of long-term concern to us. At the same time, Secretary 
Albright noted considerable caution. She said Mr. Khatami does not 
control the entire Iranian Government, and that is perhaps the most 
notable observation for all of us who are trying to decide what to do, 
on the one hand, with Mr. Khatami's very moderate and positive 
statements and the continued behavior in the overall Government that 
appears to be in conflict.
  The intelligence services, the military, the Revolutionary Guards are 
outside the control of Mr. Khatami. They respond to Supreme 
Jurisconsult Khamenei and the more controversial leaders whose 
candidate was defeated by Khatami in last year's election. As a result, 
Iran's behavior is somewhat schizophrenic.

  For example, with regard to the Arab-Israel peace process, Mr. 
Khatami invited Yasser Arafat to Tehran and accepted Palestinian 
decisions to negotiate for peace. But Iran also continues to emit harsh 
anti-Israeli rhetoric, which does not advance the cause of peace. 
Khatami has condemned terrorism, but Iran continues to support anti-
Israeli terrorist groups like Hezbollah and terrorizes Iranian exile 
opponents of the regime. Iran has made progress against illegal drugs 
and is beginning to reform its institutions. But allies of Khatami, 
such as the mayor of Tehran and the Interior Minister, are threatened 
with trials, which are forms of intimidation by the old guard.
  As Secretary of State Albright noted, Iran has welcomed large numbers 
of Afghan refugees. Iran has also improved its relations with its Arab 
neighbors in the Gulf. But its development of weapons of mass 
destruction must give these same neighbors considerable pause. In no 
way could today's Iran be called a force for stability in the region.
  Secretary Albright was clear that American concerns remain and that 
U.S. policy towards Iran will not change until Iranian policies, and 
the actions flowing from those policies, change first. But she also 
held out the possibility for better relations, which must be 
tantalizing to many of the Iranian majority who voted for Khatami. The 
possibility should be equally tantalizing to Americans who want peace, 
who want security, and who want democracy for all the states of the 
Middle East.
  But closure will not come easily, Mr. President, or quickly. I will 
never completely get over the Iranian holding of our Embassy staff 
hostage in Tehran for over a year, and I suspect many other Americans 
agree with me. The death sentence which Iran applies to a writer whose 
book offends them and who is thereby condemned to a life in hiding 
deeply offends me. Let me add that if it is proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt that Iran was involved in the killing of 19 American airmen at 
Khobar Towers, the consequences for Iran will be severe and the 
possibility for better relations with us will be zero.
  Major changes in Iranian behavior must precede an improvement in 
relations between the United States and Iran, and Secretary Albright's 
measured tone this Wednesday reflects the administration's sober 
understanding of this reality. But she reminded Iran that our problem 
with them is not their culture or their religion, both of which we 
respect; the problem is Iranian actions. If those actions change, we 
will develop a roadmap for better relations over time.
  Meanwhile, at the human level of athletics, this coming Sunday in 
Lyons, France, or in universities across the United States, Iranians 
and Americans accept each other as individuals, compete fairly, and 
come to know each other as friends. We relearn how much more we have in 
common in our fundamental aspirations for our lives and our children's 
lives. If the Iranian Government chooses, our Governments can relate in 
the same way, and a key region will be safer.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cochran). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.
  May I commend my friend and colleague from Nebraska for his usual 
eloquence. When he reflects on past experiences and provides some 
insight into some of the actions that this country has taken, and those 
who wear the uniform of this country have taken, all Americans do well 
to listen, in my judgment. I have enormous respect for him.

  He has drawn our attention today to some important developments that 
have taken place or will take place in the next week. And I continue to 
commend him for his leadership in those areas. I have enjoyed an 
association that goes over a long time. We did not know each other in 
Vietnam, but we served together as Governors, and we came to this 
institution together. And I am very proud to call him a friend.
  Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield, I wish to associate myself 
with the remarks of my colleague from Virginia in regards to the 
distinguished Senator from Nebraska and how we all

[[Page S6664]]

have profound respect for his judgments, his remarks, particularly as 
they relate to the security interests of this country, which he has 
served and continues to serve very aptly.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I was pleased to be able to yield to my 
distinguished senior colleague notwithstanding an earlier conversation 
that appeared to combine two very fine States in ways that might not 
work to the complete satisfaction of the two junior Senators from those 
States.
  Mr. President, the defense bill before us today is a solid package. 
It represents a bipartisan effort on the part of the committee and a 
delicate balance between funding our readiness today and preparing for 
the wars of tomorrow.
  We are hearing a familiar ring with regard to defense spending. Force 
structure and end strength have been slashed by over 30 percent. 
Overseas commitments have increased significantly and are pushing our 
troops to their limits. Procurement funding is down by over 70 percent. 
And our vehicles, ships, and aircraft inventories are too old and 
cannot be sustained at current production rates.
  On the other hand, we are now, in the context of imminent major 
military challenges, in a relatively benign period. The end of the cold 
war has allowed us to reduce force structure and end strength by 
roughly one-third and procurement by well over half. Despite this, we 
are still spending at 85 percent of the average cold war peacetime 
spending levels, and we will continue to do so at least through 2003--
85 percent.
  We have gone from 18 to 10 Army divisions, 36 to 20 fighter wing 
equivalents, and 15 to 11 carriers. Yet we have only cut the budget top 
line by 15 percent.
  How do we explain this? In part, Mr. President, by increased overseas 
commitments. Yet even Bosnia involves only about a third of the 
division and is costing us less than 1 percent of the defense budget. 
In part, we are spending more for weapons. But weapons procurement is 
down by over 70 percent, and each new weapon is much more lethal than 
its predecessor, allowing us to buy fewer.
  In part, we are having to spend much more for maintenance per vehicle 
or ship or aircraft or weapon because many of these systems are so old. 
But new systems entering the inventory require far less maintenance, 
and much of the maintenance is now being done for less by the private 
sector.
  How then can we explain to the American taxpayer that we have cut 
forces by over a third but have only cut the budget by half? And that 
amounts to only about 15 percent. The obvious and unequivocal answer is 
infrastructure. Infrastructure means the facilities and other assets 
that support our troops on the front line. Above all, it means bases.
  Last month, we received a BRAC report required by last year's defense 
authorization bill. The report involved analysis of 259 bases that the 
military departments identified as major installations and concluded 
that DOD has about 23 percent excess capacity.
  The report went on to indicate that new base closure commissions in 
2001 and 2005, if bold enough to close the bulk of the remaining 
excess, will add $21 billion in the years 2008 through 2015 and $3 
billion every year thereafter.
  Needless to say, Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that this 
Congress is unwilling to authorize another base realignment and closure 
commission at this time.
  If we don't have the courage to shut down these unneeded facilities 
to quit wasting so flagrantly the taxpayers' money, we will continue to 
stress our forces to their limits, to lose troops in droves that we've 
spent billions to recruit and train, and to fail to invest in the 
weapons, that will maintain our substantial military edge.
  I am especially troubled by those who will not support another BRAC 
then turn around and attack the Administration and the Congress for 
underfunding the military for deploying U.S. forces to contingencies 
overseas, or for procuring too few weapons.
  Mr. President, I understand, objections to BRAC, related to 
privatization-in-place of depot work in Texas and California even 
though this issue is mostly behind us, the atmosphere, remains 
unnecessarily charged. But the real issue here concerns who is being 
punished by Congressional indignation, with the BRAC process as a 
result of the recent depot controversy?
  In the end, we only punish those who most need the benefits of 
infrastructure savings. First, we punish the nation's taxpayers when we 
fail to make the best use of the resources with which they entrust us. 
Second, we punish today's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, whose 
readiness depends on sufficient reliable resources for equipment, 
training and operations through the year. Finally, we punish tomorrow's 
force, as we continue to mortgage, research, development, and 
modernization of equipment necessary to keep America strong into the 
21st century.
  At its most basic level, getting rid of excess infrastructure, 
consistent with American public expectations, is just a good 
government. I reiterate may disappointment that we do not have the 
support needed to deal with this wasteful situation.
  Mr. President, I nonetheless support the bill in its current form. It 
includes many badly needed provisions, including a 3.1 percent pay 
raise for our troops, funding for Bosnia, and funding for numerous 
modern systems to replace those that are simply too old to effectively 
wage future battles and to be maintained at reasonable costs. I look 
forward to the continued deliberations on this important 
legislation, not only with my fellow members of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee but with the entire Senate on the important issues 
and challenges that face our Nation today.

  With that, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                       oil spills in puget sound

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I will take this opportunity to thank my 
colleague, Senator Thurmond, and the other managers of this bill, for 
agreeing to a modest amendment of my own in their bill. They and their 
staffs have been most helpful in this effort.
  That amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution urging the Navy to 
take immediate action to control oil spills from Naval vessels at U.S. 
ports. This amendment is the result of a discouraging performance by 
the navy in my home state of Washington this year. There have been six 
significant oil spills from Naval vessels in Puget Sound in 1998. In my 
opinion, that is six spills too many.
  The Puget Sound is the jewel of Washington. With Mount Rainer to the 
east and the Olympic Peninsula to the West, Puget Sound is one of the 
most beautiful places in the state, and in my admittedly biased 
opinion, in the country. Tourists and recreationists alike enjoy 
sailing, fishing, and ferry rides on the Sound. The Sound is home to 
abundant marine life. Thousands of people in Washington are dedicated 
to keeping Puget Sound clean so that its magnificence can be enjoyed by 
generations to come.
  So, Mr. President, I am disturbed when the carelessness of Naval 
personnel on vessels docked in the Sound for repairs at the Naval 
Shipyard in Bremerton or Naval Station Everett pollutes that beautiful 
body of water. Six oil spills in as many months is a poor record by any 
standard.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in pushing the Navy to take immediate 
steps to curb the number of oil spills caused by Naval personnel in 
U.S. waters. More attention to the risk of oil spills, more training to 
teach Naval personnel how to avoid spills, and improved liaison with 
local communities where spills occur should go a long way to improve 
the Navy's environmental record. Oil spills, Mr. President, can and 
should be limited.
  I thank the Armed Services Committee, the bill managers and their 
staffs for working with me to pass this important amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes 
as in morning business on two additional subjects.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Gorton pertaining to the introduction of S. 2196 
are located in today's Record under ``Submission on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

[[Page S6665]]

               Motion to Recommit With Amendment No. 2735

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have just been in consultation with the 
distinguished majority leader. Acting on his behalf and at his 
instruction, I take the following steps:
  I move to recommit the pending bill to the Armed Services Committee 
with instructions to report back forthwith with all amendments agreed 
to in status quo, and with the following amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] moves to recommit 
     the pending bill, S. 2057, to the Armed Services Committee 
     with instructions to report back forthwith with all 
     amendments agreed to in status quo, and with the following 
     amendment No. 2735, for Mr. Warner.

  Mr. WARNER. 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:


                           amendment no. 2735

   (Purpose: Condemning Forced Abortions in the People's Republic of 
                                 China)

       At the appropriate place insert:

                  TITLE   --FORCED ABORTIONS IN CHINA

     SEC.   . SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Forced Abortion 
     Condemnation Act''.

     SEC.   . FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Forced abortion was rightly denounced as a crime 
     against humanity by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.
       (2) For over 15 years there have been frequent and credible 
     reports of forced abortion and forced sterilization in 
     connection with the population control policies of the 
     People's Republic of China. These reports indicate the 
     following:
       (A) Although it is the stated position of the politburo of 
     the Chinese Communist Party that forced abortion and forced 
     sterilization have no role in the population control program, 
     in fact the Communist Chinese Government encourages both 
     forced abortion and forced sterilization through a 
     combination of strictly enforced birth quotas and immunity 
     for local population control officials who engage in 
     coercion. Officials acknowledge that there have been 
     instances of forced abortions and sterilization, and no 
     evidence has been made available to suggest that the 
     perpetrators have been punished.
       (B) People's Republic of China population control 
     officials, in cooperation with employers and works unit 
     officials, routinely monitor women's menstrual cycles and 
     subject women who conceive without government authorization 
     to extreme psychological pressure, to harsh economic 
     sanctions, including unpayable fines and loss of employment, 
     and often to physical force.
       (C) Official sanctions for giving birth to unauthorized 
     children include fines in amounts several times larger than 
     the per capita annual incomes of residents of the People's 
     Republic of China. In Fujian, for example, the average fine 
     is estimated to be twice a family's gross annual income. 
     Families which cannot pay the fine may be subject to 
     confiscation and destruction of their homes and personal 
     property.
       (D) Especially harsh punishments have been inflicted on 
     those whose resistance is motivated by religion. For example, 
     according to a 1995 Amnesty International report, the 
     Catholic inhabitants of 2 villages in Hebei Province were 
     subjected to population control under the slogan ``better to 
     have more graves than one more child''. Enforcement measures 
     included torture, sexual abuse, and the detention of 
     resisters' relatives as hostages.
       (E) Forced abortions in Communist China often have taken 
     place in the very late stages of pregnancy.
       (F) Since 1994 forced abortion and sterilization have been 
     used in Communist China not only to regulate the number of 
     children, but also to eliminate those who are regarded as 
     defective in accordance with the official eugenic policy 
     known as the ``Natal and Health Care Law''.

     SEC.   . DENIAL OF ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES OF PERSONS IN 
                   THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ENGAGED IN 
                   ENFORCEMENT OF FORCED ABORTION POLICY.

       The Secretary of State may not issue any visa to, and the 
     Attorney General may not admit to the United States, any 
     national of the People's Republic of China, including any 
     official of the Communist Party or the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China and its regional, local, and 
     village authorities (except the head of state, the head of 
     government, and cabinet level ministers) who the Secretary 
     finds, based on credible information, has been involved in 
     the establishment or enforcement of population control 
     policies resulting in a woman being forced to undergo an 
     abortion against her free choice, or resulting in a man or 
     woman being forced to undergo sterilization against his or 
     her free choice.

     SEC.   . WAIVER.

       The President may waive the requirement contained in 
     section __ with respect to a national of the People's 
     Republic of China if the President--
       (1) determines that it is in the national interest of the 
     United States to do so; and
       (2) provides written notification to Congress containing a 
     justification for the waiver.

  Mr. WARNER. 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.


                Amendment No. 2736 to Motion to Recommit

   (Purpose: Condemning forced abortions in the People's Republic of 
                                 China)

  Mr. WARNER. 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 Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2736 to the motion to recommit with 
     Amendment No. 2735.

  Mr. WARNER. 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:

       In the amendment, strike all after ``FORCED'' and insert 
     the following:

                           ABORTIONS IN CHINA

     SEC.   . SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Forced Abortion 
     Condemnation Act''.

     SEC.     . FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Forced abortion was rightly denounced as a crime 
     against humanity by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.
       (2) For over 15 years there have been frequent and credible 
     reports of forced abortion and forced sterilization in 
     connection with the population control policies of the 
     People's Republic of China. These reports indicate the 
     following:
       (A) Although it is the stated position of the politburo of 
     the Chinese Communist Party that forced abortion and forced 
     sterilization have no role in the population control program, 
     in fact the Communist Chinese Government encourages both 
     forced abortion and forced sterilization through a 
     combination of strictly enforced birth quotas and immunity 
     for local population control officials who engage in 
     coercion. Officials acknowledge that there have been 
     instances of forced abortions and sterilization, and no 
     evidence has been made available to suggest that the 
     perpetrators have been punished.
       (B) People's Republic of China population control 
     officials, in cooperation with employers and works unit 
     officials, routinely monitor women's menstrual cycles and 
     subject women who conceive without government authorization 
     to extreme psychological pressure, to harsh economic 
     sanctions, including unpayable fines and loss of employment, 
     and often to physical force.
       (C) Official sanctions for giving birth to unauthorized 
     children include fines in amounts several times larger than 
     the per capita annual incomes of residents of the People's 
     Republic of China. In Fujian, for example, the average fine 
     is estimated to be twice a family's gross annual income. 
     Families which cannot pay the fine may be subject to 
     confiscation and destruction of their homes and personal 
     property.
       (D) Especially harsh punishments have been inflicted on 
     those whose resistance is motivated by religion. For example, 
     according to a 1995 Amnesty International report, the 
     Catholic inhabitants of 2 villages in Hebei Province were 
     subjected to population control under the slogan ``better to 
     have more graves than one more child''. Enforcement measures 
     included torture, sexual abuse, and the detention of 
     resisters' relatives as hostages.
       (E) Forced abortions in Communist China often have taken 
     place in the very late stages of pregnancy.
       (F) Since 1994 forced abortion and sterilization have been 
     used in Communist China not only to regulate the number of 
     children, but also to eliminate those who are regarded as 
     defective in accordance with the official eugenic policy 
     known as the ``Natal and Health Care Law''.

     SEC.     . DENIAL OF ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES OF PERSONS 
                   IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ENGAGED IN 
                   ENFORCEMENT OF FORCED ABORTION POLICY.

       The Secretary of State may not issue any visa to, and the 
     Attorney General may not admit to the United States, any 
     national of the People's Republic of China, including any 
     official of the Communist Party or the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China and its regional, local, and 
     village authorities (except the head of state, the head of 
     government, and cabinet level ministers) who the Secretary 
     finds, based on credible information, has been involved in 
     the establishment or enforcement of population control 
     policies resulting in a woman being forced to undergo an 
     abortion against her free choice, or resulting in a man or 
     woman being forced to undergo sterilization against his or 
     her free choice.

     SEC.     . WAIVER.

       The President may waive the requirement contained in 
     section ____ with respect to

[[Page S6666]]

     a national of the People's Republic of China if the 
     President--
       (1) determines that it is in the national interest of the 
     United States to do so; and
       (2) provides written notification to Congress containing a 
     justification for the waiver.
       (3) This Section shall become effective 1 day after 
     enactment.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  The Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian that 11 are needed to get 
the yeas and nays.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, while the Chair is seeking to consult with 
the Parliamentarian, I want to say that this is an effort to keep this 
very important bill moving. I feel very strongly that this is a limited 
opportunity for the Senate to consider the annual authorization bill. 
The majority leader, in consultation with the Democrat leader, has 
decided that we have the balance of this day. We hope to have votes at 
5 o'clock on Monday. I will address that later. We will have Tuesday 
and such part of Wednesday as the leadership will give us to complete 
this very important piece of legislation.
  Given this extremely narrow window of opportunity, I hope that we can 
proceed today to have a parliamentary situation, which is in place and 
which will enable the distinguished majority leader and the Democrat 
leader, on Monday, to address the Senate and keep this bill active.
  It is so important because I had the opportunity last night to visit 
with the Secretary of State, as I had earlier in the day the 
opportunity to have breakfast with the Secretary of Defense.
  And our country is working with our principal allies in regard to the 
very serious issues and fractious situations surrounding Kosovo and the 
need for clarification of our position as it relates to Bosnia.
  Mr. President, It is very interesting. I remember the extensive 
debates here on the issue of Bosnia. This Senator time and time again 
was opposed to sending in the ground forces. But, nevertheless, that 
decision was made. It was always the thought that you have to contain 
the Bosnia-Herzegovina geographic area to preclude a spillover into the 
Kosovo region, a region which I visited at one point with the 
distinguished former majority leader, Senator Dole.
  Mr. President, I understand that I can at this time ask for the yeas 
and nays on the first-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Are the yeas and nays ordered on the second-degree 
amendment, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second for the yeas and 
nays on the second-degree?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I understand the ruling of the Chair is that the yeas and 
nays are on all of the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Parliamentarian advises me that the yeas and nays have been 
ordered on the motion and on the first-degree amendment to the motion.


                Amendment No. 2737 to Amendment No. 2736

 (Purpose: Condemning human rights abuses in the People's Republic of 
                                 China)

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

       The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2737 to amendment No. 2736.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment will be dispensed with.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion, at the 
instruction of the distinguished majority leader, to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate upon S. 2057 
     (Calendar No. 362), a bill to authorize appropriations for 
     fiscal year 1999 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.
         Strom Thurmond, John Warner, Dan Coats, James Inhofe, 
           Dirk Kempthorne, Pat Roberts, Bob Smith, Rick Santorum, 
           John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Larry Craig, Jesse Helms, 
           Charles Robb, Trent Lott, Don Nickles, and Ted Stevens.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this 
cloture vote will occur on Tuesday, June 23, at a time to be determined 
by the majority leader after notification of the Democratic leader. I 
do now, however, ask that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. For the information of all Senators, a cloture motion was 
just filed on the DOD authorization bill in an effort to keep the bill 
free from extraneous matters. Under rule XXII, all Senators must file 
first-degree amendments by 1 p.m. on Monday, and the second-degree 
amendments up to 1 hour prior to the cloture vote.
  Mr. President, the amendments which have just been filed, of course, 
are offered by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. I will be in 
consultation with the majority leader. But at the present time, it is 
the intention of the Senator from Virginia, in his capacity as 
comanager of the chairman, Mr. Thurmond, to have a taking of those 
amendments. I just wish to inform all Senators of that intention, 
because this is an effort to keep this bill once again moving so that 
we can continue to have action by the Senate on this bill.
  Does my distinguished colleague at this point wish to address the 
clearances of the amendments that are pending?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Virginia will 
yield.
  Mr. WARNER. I just yield for a question.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder whether or not it is inconvenient to anyone if we 
put in a brief quorum call for 5 minutes to allow me to do something 
that I need to attend to, if that would not inconvenience any other 
Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Perhaps there are some who wish to address the Senate in 
the intervening period.
  I see no Senator seeking recognition. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, earlier today I had the distinct honor of 
attending a 75th anniversary ceremony held at the Naval Research 
Laboratory here in the Anacostia area of our Nation's capital. For 75 
years, the U.S. Navy has conducted research on all aspects of radio, 
radar, sonar, space, and the like. It is a facility that is without 
comparison anywhere in the world in terms of its excellence.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article in today's Washington Post be 
printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1)
  Mr. WARNER. In today's Washington Post, on page 23, is a brief 
description of the historic work that has been performed by this 
laboratory.
  I say with a great sense of humility I was asked to speak because of 
the fact that I am a graduate of a school that was conducted at this 
laboratory during World War II. Young men, and to my recollection, a 
few young women, were trained as radio/radar technicians. It was a 15-
month course. Barely a third of those who started this course ever 
completed it because it was 6 days and 6 nights, and those were not 
unusual hours during wartime, and then

[[Page S6667]]

for the period after the cessation of the war in Europe and the 
Pacific, the momentum kept up, but they turned out remarkably trained 
young people, and I was privileged to be one of them.
  I remember on the day of graduation--and these are the basic remarks 
that I deliver today--an admiral stood up and addressed us, and he 
said, ``You understand how to maintain,'' which means fix, ``every 
piece of equipment in the United States Navy through which an electron 
flows.''
  Thousands of young persons went through that program, then reported 
to the fleet, whether it was a ship or submarine or an airplane, and 
they were immediately able to go in and examine the most complicated 
pieces of equipment and repair them. And that was before the black box 
era, where today, if there is a malfunction of a piece of electronic 
equipment, by and large, the technician goes in and pulls the box, 
takes a spare box out and pushes it right in, and the equipment starts 
up.
  No, in those days we had to take the time to take off the covering, 
go in with electronic devices to try to find the faulty vacuum tube. We 
did not have solid circuitry in those days to any extent. It was vacuum 
tubes, great big capacitors. But that was the equipment that gave the 
eyes and ears to the U.S. Navy, and we shared it with our allies.
  I always believed that this laboratory contributed in a very 
significant way to the ultimate victory of the U.S. forces, together 
with our allies. Radar, which was a distinct advantage that the United 
States and Britain had, was basically developed simultaneously in Great 
Britain and at this laboratory. That gave us an enormous, what we 
called a force multiplier, over the axis forces, because we had the 
eyes and ears to project out distances which are small by today's 
measure but in those days very significant, and to detect the presence 
of ships and aircraft to give the American and allied forces early 
warning. I don't know how many lives were saved.
  This laboratory really was the vision of Thomas Alva Edison, who we 
all recognize as one of the great pioneer scientists in American 
history. He had an active role in this institution in 1923. Then for a 
while he phased out, and then he came back.
  I commend the tens of thousands of people who through the 75 years of 
history, both civilian and uniform, Navy and Marine, and, indeed, 
officers and enlisted of other services who have trained there and 
their contribution to world freedom.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

        Navy Lab Uncloaks a Secret, Celebrates Its Breakthroughs

                            (By Steve Vogel)

       The veil was pulled away from a Cold War secret this week 
     at the Naval Research Laboratory in Southwest Washington.
       Speaking to an audience of scientists, lab employees and 
     reporters, top U.S. intelligence officials on Wednesday 
     disclosed the existence of a previously classified spy 
     satellite system.
       The system, known as Galactic Radiation and Background 
     (GRAB), was launched in June 1960 and became the nation's 
     first reconnaissance satellite system, gathering information 
     on Soviet air defense radars only weeks after Francis Gary 
     Power's U-2 was shot down over the Soviet Union.
       For the NRL, which this week is celebrating its 75th 
     anniversary, the public disclosure of GRAB was a relatively 
     rare moment in the sun.
       Spread over 100 buildings on a 130 acre site along the 
     Potomac, NRL has been responsible for a host of critical 
     scientific developments, from the discovery of radar in the 
     1920s to directing the first American satellite program--the 
     Vanguard project--in the 1950s, to a pivotal role more 
     recently in developing the Global Positioning System.
       GRAB, which was proposed, developed, built and operated by 
     NRL, was ``a milestone in the history of the laboratory in 
     the history of U.S. intelligence,'' said Keith Hall, director 
     of the National Reconnaissance Office, in announcing the 
     declassification.
       Addressing the family members of NRL employees in the 
     audience, Rear Adm. Lowell Jacoby, the director of naval 
     intelligence, said, ``For many of you, this is the first 
     opportunity to hear what your husband or your father or your 
     grandfather or whoever were doing every day when they came to 
     work at NRL.''
       The lab, though little known today to many Washingtonians, 
     including the thousands of commuters who drive past it every 
     day on Interstate 295 just above the Blue Plains water 
     treatment plant, is inextricably linked to some of the 20th 
     century's major scientific breakthroughs.
       Those accomplishments are being celebrated this week in a 
     ceremony and a five-day symposium.
       ``There's a real long history of firsts that came out of 
     this lab,'' said Ed Senasack, head of the lab's spacecraft 
     engineering department.
       The lab has provided many things, not the least of them 
     ``time to think,'' said Jerome Karle, who has worked at the 
     lab since 1946. Karle, with his partner and wife, Isabella 
     Karle, used his time to develop a theory for determining 
     molecular structure, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize 
     for chemistry in 1985.
       That research, like much of the work at NRL, has had 
     implications far beyond military technology. ``The ability to 
     get these fundamental structures has revolutionized the 
     pharmaceutical industry, because it provides fundamental 
     information about drugs and their activities and processes,'' 
     Karle, 80, said in an interview at the lab where he and his 
     76-year-old wife still lead groundbreaking research.
       ``NRL is a research lab. It's where the ideas come from,'' 
     says Gerald Borsuk, a scientist who has worked at the lab for 
     three decades. ``NRL has kept research going here when 
     industry has shut theirs down. Nobody wants to spend money on 
     research, because it won't pay off for 10 years.''
       The lab began with an offhand remark made by Thomas Edison 
     to a newspaper reporter. What the country needed, the great 
     American inventor told an interviewer in 1915, was an idea 
     factory.
       It took eight years and even some lobbying help from Edison 
     to get congressional funding, but in 1923, the lab opened on 
     the site of an annex to the Navy's Bellevue Arsenal, a 
     location that won out over competing proposals from Annapolis 
     and West Orange, N.J.
       Peeved that the site near his own lab in New Jersey had not 
     been selected, Edison refused to attend the commissioning 
     ceremony and predicted the lab would develop into a home for 
     incompetent naval officers who would take the work out of the 
     hands of scientists. But within a few years, impressed by the 
     lab's early successes, Edison admitted that his fears were 
     without foundation.
       One of those early successes--the discovery of radar--
     happened more or less by accident in the early 1920s. NRL 
     researchers who were experimenting with radio sent signals 
     across the Potomac to a receiver on Hains Point. ``As ship 
     traffic would pass through, they noticed the phenomenon that 
     was radar,'' said Capt. Bruce Buckley, commanding officer of 
     the NRL. Though the Navy was slow to act on the discovery, 
     the NRL was to play a key role in developing radar for 
     military use.
       In the early years, because NRL was off the beaten track, 
     some hardy employees living in Virginia rowed to work across 
     the Potomac. Well into the 1950s, many employees commuted to 
     work on launches that ferried workers from Alexandria and the 
     Washington Navy Yard.
       Space exploration became a major part of the lab's 
     operations in the 1940s, when NRL scientists conducted cosmic 
     ray and other experiments by launching captured German V-2 
     rockets. Many of the most important V-2 experiments were the 
     brainchild of a NRL scientist named Herbert Friedman, a man 
     now considered a space pioneer.
       ``It was a wonderful opportunity,'' Friedman, 82, but still 
     active at NRL, recalled recently. ``It opened up an entirely 
     new vision of how the sun interacts with the ionosphere.''
       The lab's most recognizable physical feature, a 50-foot 
     radio telescope atop the headquarters building, was installed 
     in the early 1950s. Though no longer operating, the telescope 
     was used in determining the surface temperatures of Venus, 
     Mars and Jupiter.
       Vanguard I, developed by NRL, was launched into orbit in 
     1958 and is still there; in March, the satellite marked its 
     40th year in space, by far the record for any man-made 
     satellite.
       Civilian scientists at NRL praise the Navy's stewardship of 
     the lab, which operates with about $800 million in annual 
     funding and has around 3,400 employees. ``The Navy has kept 
     NRL alive, despite having lots of freaks here, and guys in 
     sandals, and geeks, and you don't know what they'll come up 
     with next,'' said Borsuk.
       Throughout much of NRL's history, the military leadership 
     has been ``very quick to support anybody with ideas,'' said 
     Friedman.
       But there is concern at the lab about a growing sentiment 
     in Congress, in the aftermath of the Cold War, against 
     funding research unless it is guaranteed to have concrete 
     results.
       ``In the past, there weren't [funding problems], but there 
     are pressures outside the military that have made life much 
     more difficult,'' said Nobel laureate Karle. ``It is post-
     Cold War, but it's accelerating now.''

  Mr. THURMOND. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be 
set aside solely for the purpose of adopting a series of amendments 
which have been agreed to by both sides. I further ask unanimous 
consent that upon the disposition of this series of cleared amendments, 
the amendments set aside once again become the pending amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, of course I will not object. I understand 
that the second unanimous consent agreement would read that upon the 
disposition of

[[Page S6668]]

this series of cleared amendments, the amendments set aside once again 
become the pending business. Is that the Chair's understanding?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the Chair's understanding.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2738

(Purpose: To reduce amounts authorized to be appropriated under titles 
  I, II, and III and division B in order to reflect savings resulting 
    from revised economic assumptions, and to increase funding for 
 operation and maintenance for the Army National Guard and funding for 
    verification and control technology of the Department of Energy)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which would reduce 
the amounts authorized to be appropriated in the Department of Defense 
for inflation savings. The amendment also increases readiness funding 
for the Army National Guard by $120 million and $20 million for arms 
control in the Department of Energy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2738.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1005. REDUCTIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1998 AUTHORIZATIONS OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS FOR DIVISION A AND DIVISION B 
                   AND INCREASES IN CERTAIN AUTHORIZATIONS OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Total Reduction.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     in this division, amounts authorized to be appropriated under 
     other provisions of this division are reduced in accordance 
     with subsection (b) by the total amount of $421,900,000 in 
     order to reflect savings resulting from revised economic 
     assumptions.
       (b) Distribution of Reduction.--
       (1) Procurement.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     procurement under title I are reduced as follows:
       (A) Army.--For the Army:
       (i) Aircraft.--For aircraft under section 101(1), by 
     $4,000,000.
       (ii) Missiles.--For missiles under section 101(2), by 
     $4,000,000.
       (iii) Weapons and tracked combat vehicles.--For weapons and 
     tracked combat vehicles under section 101(3), by $4,000,000.
       (iv) Ammunition.--For ammunition under section 101(4), by 
     $3,000,000.
       (v) Other procurement.--For other procurement under section 
     101(5), by $9,000,000.
       (B) Navy and marine corps.--For the Navy, Marine Corps, or 
     both the Navy and Marine Corps:
       (i) Aircraft.--For aircraft under section 102(a)(1), by 
     $22,000,000.
       (ii) Weapons.--For weapons, including missiles and 
     torpedoes, under section 102(a)(2), by $4,000,000.
       (iii) Shipbuilding and conversion.--For shipbuilding and 
     conversion under section 102(a)(3), by $18,000,000.
       (iv) Other procurement.--For other procurement under 
     section 102(a)(4), by $12,000,000.
       (v) Marine corps procurement.--For procurement for the 
     Marine Corps under section 102(b), by $2,000,000.
       (vi) Ammunition.--For ammunition under section 102(c), by 
     $1,000,000.
       (C) Air Force.--For the Air Force:
       (i) Aircraft.--For aircraft under section 103(1), by 
     $23,000,000.
       (ii) Missiles.--For missiles under section 103(2), by 
     $7,000,000.
       (iii) Ammunition.--For ammunition under section 103(3), by 
     $1,000,000.
       (iv) Other procurement.--For other procurement under 
     section 103(4), by $17,500,000.
       (D) Defense-wide activities.--For the Department of Defense 
     for Defense-wide activities under section 104, by $5,800,000.
       (E) Chemical demilitarization program.--For the destruction 
     of lethal chemical agents and munitions and of chemical 
     warfare material under section 107, by $3,000,000.
       (2) RDT&E.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     research, development, test, and evaluation under title II 
     are reduced as follows:
       (A) Army.--For the Army under section 201(1), by 
     $10,000,000.
       (B) Navy.--For the Navy under section 201(2), by 
     $20,000,000.
       (C) Air force.--For the Air Force under section 201(3), by 
     $39,000,000.
       (D) Defense-wide activities.--For Defense-wide activities 
     under section 201(4), by $26,700,000.
       (3) Operation and maintenance.--Amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for operation and maintenance under title III 
     are reduced as follows:
       (A) Army.--For the Army under section 301(a)(1), by 
     $24,000,000.
       (B) Navy.--For the Navy under section 301(a)(2), by 
     $32,000,000.
       (C) Marine corps.--For the Marine Corps under section 
     301(a)(3), by $4,000,000.
       (D) Air force.--For the Air Force under section 301(a)(4), 
     by $31,000,000.
       (E) Defense-wide activities.--For Defense-wide activities 
     under section 301(a)(6), by $17,600,000.
       (F) Army reserve.--For the Army Reserve under section 
     301(a)(7), by $2,000,000.
       (G) Naval reserve.--For the Naval Reserve under section 
     301(a)(8), by $2,000,000.
       (H) Air force reserve.--For the Air Force Reserve under 
     section 301(a)(10), by $2,000,000.
       (I) Army national guard.--For the Army National Guard under 
     section 301(a)(11), by $4,000,000.
       (J) Air national guard.--For the Air National Guard under 
     section 301(a)(12), by $4,000,000.
       (K) Environmental restoration, army.--For Environmental 
     Restoration, Army under section 301(a)(15), by $1,000,000.
       (L) Environmental restoration, navy.--For Environmental 
     Restoration, Navy under section 301(a)(16), by $1,000,000.
       (M) Environmental restoration, air force.--For 
     Environmental Restoration, Air Force under section 
     301(a)(17), by $1,000,000.
       (N) Environmental restoration, defense-wide.--For 
     Environmental Restoration, Defense-wide under section 
     301(a)(18), by $1,000,000.
       (O) Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-
     wide.--For Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, 
     Defense-wide under section 301(a)(21), by $2,000,000.
       (P) Medical programs, defense.--For Medical Programs, 
     Defense under section 301(a)(23), by $36,000,000.
       (4) Military construction, army.--Amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for military construction, Army, under title XXI 
     by section 2104(a) are reduced by $5,000,000, of which 
     $3,000,000 shall be a reduction of support of military family 
     housing under section 2104(a)(5)(B).
       (5) Military construction, navy.--Amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for military construction, Navy, under title 
     XXII by section 2204(a) are reduced by $5,000,000, of which--
       (A) $1,000,000 shall be a reduction of construction and 
     acquisition of military family housing under section 
     2204(a)(5)(A); and
       (B) $3,000,000 shall be a reduction of support of military 
     family housing under section 2204(a)(5)(B).
       (6) Military construction, air force.--Amounts authorized 
     to be appropriated for military construction, Air Force, 
     under title XXIII by section 2304(a) are reduced by 
     $4,000,000, of which--
       (A) $1,000,000 shall be a reduction of construction and 
     acquisition of military family housing under section 
     2304(a)(5)(A); and
       (B) $2,000,000 shall be a reduction of support of military 
     family housing under section 2304(a)(5)(B).
       (7) Military construction, defense agencies.--Amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated for military construction, 
     Defense Agencies, under title XXIV by section 2404(a) are 
     reduced by $6,300,000, of which $5,000,000 shall be a 
     reduction of defense base closure and realignment under 
     section 2404(a)(10), of which--
       (A) $1,000,000 shall be a reduction of defense base closure 
     and realignment, Army;
       (B) $2,000,000 shall be a reduction of defense base closure 
     and realignment, Navy; and
       (C) $2,000,000 shall be a reduction of defense base closure 
     and realignment, Air Force.
       (8) North atlantic treaty organization security investment 
     program.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     Security Investment program under title XXV by section 2502 
     are reduced by $1,000,000.
       (c) Proportionate Reductions Within Accounts.--The amount 
     provided for each budget activity, budget activity group, 
     budget subactivity group, program, project, or activity under 
     an authorization of appropriations reduced by subsection (b) 
     is hereby reduced by the percentage computed by dividing the 
     total amount of that authorization of appropriations (before 
     the reduction) into the amount by which that total amount is 
     so reduced.
       (d) Increase in Certain Authorizations of Appropriations.--
       (1) Operation and maintenance, army national guard.--The 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by section 301(a)(11), 
     as reduced by subsection (b)(3)(I), is increased by 
     $120,000,000.
       (2) Other defense programs, department of energy.--The 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by section 3103 is 
     increased by $20,000,000, which amount shall be available for 
     intelligence for verification and control technology under 
     paragraph (1)(C) of that section.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared, Mr. President. We support 
the amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge the Senate adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2738) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S6669]]

                           Amendment No. 2739

 (Purpose: To provide increases in the monthly rates of hazardous duty 
 pay for aerial flight crewmembers in grades E-4 through E-9 that are 
 comparable to the increases that took effect in the rates of such pay 
                 for other grades in fiscal year 1998)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Biden, I offer an 
amendment that would increase hazardous duty incentive pay for certain 
enlisted personnel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Biden, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2739.

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

       At the end of subtitle B of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 620. INCREASED HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY FOR AERIAL FLIGHT 
                   CREWMEMBERS IN PAY GRADES E-4 TO E-9.

       (a) Rates.--The table in section 301(b) of title 37, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking out the items relating to 
     pay grades E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8, and E-9, and inserting in 
     lieu thereof the following:

``E-9.............................................................  240
 E-8   .............................................................240
 E-7   .............................................................240
 E-6   .............................................................215
 E-5   .............................................................190
 E-4   ..........................................................165''.

       (b) Effective Date.--This section and the amendment made by 
     this section shall take effect on October 1, 1998, and shall 
     apply with respect to months beginning on or after that date.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an indispensable 
group of people in our military. Mid- and senior level enlisted air 
crew men and women are critical to America's military and need to be 
properly compensated for their valuable service. Last year's Defense 
Authorization bill included a provision to adjust hazardous duty 
incentive pay upward by $50 for E-1 to E-3 enlisted air crew personnel 
and upward by $25 for E-4 air crew personnel. All other enlisted 
personnel and officers eligible for hazardous duty incentive pay also 
received an upward adjustment. Unfortunately, E-5 to E-9 air crew 
personnel were not included in this adjustment.
  My amendment provides that $40 increase in hazardous duty incentive 
pay for the E-5 to E-9 air crew personnel and adds $15 to the increase 
given to E-4 air crew personnel as of this year.
  I thank the managers of this bill, Senator Thurmond and Senator 
Levin, for their support of this important amendment and for their 
unflagging efforts every year to help the dedicated men and women in 
our armed services.
  It is crucial that we show our appreciation for America's dedicated 
mid- and senior level enlisted personnel. They provide vital experience 
in all of the military's flying missions. They are also in demand in 
the private sector. Commercial airlines are willing to pay for well-
trained and experienced flight crews. One look at the missions being 
flown by U.S. armed forces, from Bosnia to the Persian Gulf to the 
Korean Peninsula, shows how indispensable experienced air crews are to 
the defense of U.S. national interests. We cannot afford to keep losing 
these seasoned professionals.
  My amendment is one step toward addressing the problem now--letting 
these experienced aircrew personnel know that as our armed forces 
continue to work at a high operations tempo we value their unique and 
indispensable contribution to America's national interests.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If there is no objection to the amendment, without objection, the 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2739) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2449

(Purpose: To authorize the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign 
                               countries)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2449 which would 
replace section 1013 of the bill regarding ship transfers to foreign 
countries. This amendment provides country and ship names for ships 
available for transfer to foreign countries.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2449.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 1013 of the bill and insert the following:

     SEC. 1013. TRANSFERS OF CERTAIN NAVAL VESSELS TO CERTAIN 
                   FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       (a) Authority.--
       (1) Argentina.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Argentina on a grant basis the 
     tank landing ship Newport (LST 1179).
       (2) Brazil.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer vessels to the Government of Brazil as follows:
       (A) On a sale basis, the Newport class tank landing ships 
     Cayuga (LST 1186) and Peoria (LST 1183).
       (B) On a combined lease-sale basis, the Cimarron class 
     oiler Merrimack (AO 179).
       (3) Chile.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer vessels to the Government of Chile on a sale basis 
     as follows:
       (A) The Newport class tank landing ship San Bernardino (LST 
     1189).
       (B) The auxiliary repair dry dock Waterford (ARD 5).
       (4) Greece.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer vessels to the Government of Greece as follows:
       (A) On a sale basis, the following vessels:
       (i) The Oak Ridge class medium dry dock Alamogordo (ARDM 
     2).
       (ii) The Knox class frigates Vreeland (FF 1068) and Trippe 
     (FF 1075).
       (B) On a combined lease-sale basis, the Kidd class guided 
     missile destroyers Kidd (DDG 993), Callaghan (DDG 994), Scott 
     (DDG 995) and Chandler (DDG 996).
       (C) On a grant basis, the following vessels:
       (i) The Knox class frigate Hepburn (FF 1055).
       (ii) The Adams class guided missile destroyers Strauss (DDG 
     16), Semmes (DDG 18), and Waddell (DDG 24).
       (5) Mexico.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Mexico on a sale basis the 
     auxiliary repair dry dock San Onofre (ARD 30) and the Knox 
     class frigate Pharris (FF 1094).
       (6) Philippines.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized 
     to transfer to the Government of the Philippines on a sale 
     basis the Stalwart class ocean surveillance ship Triumph (T-
     AGOS 4).
       (7) Portugal.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Portugal on a grant basis the 
     Stalwart class ocean surveillance ship Assurance (T-AGOS 5).
       (8) Spain.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Spain on a sale basis the 
     Newport class tank landing ships Harlan County (LST 1196) and 
     Barnstable County (LST 1197).
       (9) Taiwan.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer vessels to the Taipei Economic and Cultural 
     Representative Office in the United States (which is the 
     Taiwan instrumentality designated pursuant to section 10(a) 
     of the Taiwan Relations Act) on a sale basis as follows:
       (A) The Knox class frigates Peary (FF 1073), Joseph Hewes 
     (FF 1078), Cook (FF 1083), Brewton (FF 1086), Kirk (FF 1087) 
     and Barbey (FF 1088).
       (B) The Newport class tank landing ships Manitowoc (LST 
     1180) and Sumter (LST 1181).
       (C) The floating dry dock Competent (AFDM 6).
       (D) The Anchorage class dock landing ship Pensacola (LSD 
     38).
       (10) Turkey.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer vessels to the Government of Turkey as follows:
       (A) On a sale basis, the following vessels:
       (i) The Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile frigates 
     Mahlon S. Tisdale (FFG 27), Reid (FFG 30) and Duncan (FFG 
     10).
       (ii) The Knox class frigates Reasoner (FF 1063), Fanning 
     (FF 1076), Bowen (FF 1079), McCandless (FF 1084), Donald 
     Beary (FF 1085), Ainsworth (FF 1090), Thomas C. Hart (FF 
     1092), and Capodanno (FF 1093).
       (B) On a grant basis, the Knox class frigates Paul (FF 
     1080), Miller (FF 1091), W.S. Simms (FF 1059).
       (11) Venezuela.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to 
     transfer to the Government of Venezuela on a sale basis the 
     unnamed medium auxiliary floating dry dock AFDM 2.
       (b) Bases of Transfer.--
       (1) Grant.--A transfer of a naval vessel authorized to be 
     made on a grant basis under subsection (a) shall be made 
     under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2321j).
       (2) Sale.--A transfer of a naval vessel authorized to be 
     made on a sale basis under subsection (a) shall be made under 
     section 21

[[Page S6670]]

     of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761).
       (3) Combined lease-sale.--(A) A transfer of a naval vessel 
     authorized to be made on a combined lease-sale basis under 
     subsection (a) shall be made under sections 61 and 21 of the 
     Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and 2761, 
     respectively) in accordance with this paragraph.
       (B) For each naval vessel authorized by subsection (a) for 
     transfer on a lease-sale basis, the Secretary of the Navy is 
     authorized to transfer the vessel under the terms of a lease, 
     with lease payments suspended for the term of the lease, if 
     the country entering into the lease of the vessel 
     simultaneously enters into a foreign military sales agreement 
     for the transfer of title to the leased vessel. Delivery of 
     title to the purchasing country shall not be made until the 
     purchase price of the vessel has been paid in full. Upon 
     delivery of title to the purchasing country, the lease shall 
     terminate.
       (C) If the purchasing country fails to make full payment of 
     the purchase price by the date required under the sales 
     agreement, the sales agreement shall be immediately 
     terminated, the suspension of lease payments under the lease 
     shall be vacated, and the United States shall retain all 
     funds received on or before the date of the termination under 
     the sales agreement, up to the amount of the lease payments 
     due and payable under the lease and all other costs required 
     by the lease to be paid to that date. No interest shall be 
     payable to the recipient by the United States on any amounts 
     that are paid to the United States by the recipient under the 
     sales agreement and are not retained by the United States 
     under the lease.
       (c) Requirement for Provision in Advance in an 
     Appropriations Act.--Authority to transfer vessels on a sale 
     or combined lease-sale basis under subsection (a) shall be 
     effective only to the extent that authority to effectuate 
     such transfers, together with appropriations to cover the 
     associated cost (as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 661a)), are provided in advance in an appropriations 
     Act.
       (d) Notification of Congress.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Navy shall submit to Congress, for each naval vessel that is 
     to be transferred under this section before January 1, 1999, 
     the notifications required under section 516 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j) and section 525 of 
     the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-118; 111 
     Stat. 2413).
       (e) Grants not Counted in Annual Total of Transferred 
     Excess Defense Articles.--The value of the naval vessels 
     authorized by subsection (a) to be transferred on a grant 
     basis under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2321j) shall not be counted for the purposes of 
     that section in the aggregate value of excess defense 
     articles transferred to countries under that section in any 
     fiscal year.
       (f) Costs of Transfers.--Any expense of the United States 
     in connection with a transfer authorized by subsection (a) 
     shall be charged to the recipient (notwithstanding section 
     516(e)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2321j(e)(1)) in the case of a transfer authorized to be made 
     on a grant basis under subsection (a)).
       (g) Repair and Refurbishment in United States Shipyards.--
     The Secretary of the Navy shall require, as a condition of 
     the transfer of a vessel under this section, that the country 
     to which the vessel is transferred have such repair or 
     refurbishment of the vessel as is needed, before the vessel 
     joins the naval forces of that country, performed at a 
     shipyard located in the United States, including a United 
     States Navy shipyard.
       (h) Expiration of Authority.--The authority to transfer a 
     vessel under subsection (a) shall expire at the end of the 
     two-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2449) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2740

 (Purpose: To revise and clarify the authority for Federal support of 
      National Guard drug interdiction and counterdrug activities)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Ford, Bond, Lott and 
Grassley, I offer an amendment which would authorize the expansion of 
counterdrug activities currently performed by the National Guard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Ford, Mr. 
     Bond, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2740.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. REVISION AND CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY FOR FEDERAL 
                   SUPPORT OF NATIONAL GUARD DRUG INTERDICTION AND 
                   COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Procurement of Equipment.--Subsection (a)(3) of section 
     112 of title 32, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     out ``and leasing of equipment'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``and equipment, and the leasing of equipment,''.
       (b) Training and Readiness.--Subsection (b)(2) of such 
     section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2)(A) A member of the National Guard serving on full-
     time National Guard duty under orders authorized under 
     paragraph (1) shall participate in the training required 
     under section 502(a) of this title in addition to the duty 
     performed for the purpose authorized under that paragraph. 
     The pay, allowances, and other benefits of the member while 
     participating in the training shall be the same as those to 
     which the member is entitled while performing duty for the 
     purpose of carrying out drug interdiction and counter-drug 
     activities.
       ``(B) Appropriations available for the Department of 
     Defense for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities may 
     be used for paying costs associated with a member's 
     participation in training described in subparagraph (A). The 
     appropriation shall be reimbursed in full, out of 
     appropriations available for paying those costs, for the 
     amounts paid. Appropriations available for paying those costs 
     shall be available for making the reimbursements.''.
       (c) Assistance to Youth and Charitable Organizations.--
     Subsection (b)(3) of such section is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) A unit or member of the National Guard of a State may 
     be used, pursuant to a State drug interdiction and counter-
     drug activities plan approved by the Secretary of Defense 
     under this section, to provide services or other assistance 
     (other than air transportation) to an organization eligible 
     to receive services under section 508 of this title if--
       ``(A) the State drug interdiction and counter-drug 
     activities plan specifically recognizes the organization as 
     being eligible to receive the services or assistance;
       ``(B) in the case of services, the provision of the 
     services meets the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     subsection (a) of section 508 of this title; and
       ``(C) the services or assistance is authorized under 
     subsection (b) or (c) of such section or in the State drug 
     interdiction and counter-drug activities plan.''.
       (d) Definition of Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug 
     Activities.--Subsection (i)(1) of such section is amended by 
     inserting after ``drug interdiction and counter-drug law 
     enforcement activities'' the following: ``, including drug 
     demand reduction activities,''.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I'm offering this amendment for myself and 
my Co-Chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Senator Bond, along 
with Senators Lott, Stevens and Grassely.
  Last year conferees added language to the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense 
Authorization bill requiring all counter-drug missions conducted by 
National Guard units to comply with section 2012 of Title 10 and 
section 508 of Title 32. Before these changes, National Guard men and 
women supported Federal, State and Local law enforcement agencies in a 
wide variety of ways from transcription and translation of DEA wiretaps 
to aerial and ground thermal imaging of suspected indoor marijuana 
growing to maintaining listening and Observation posts along the 
Southwest Border. But because of changes in last year's bill, National 
Guard members now can only participate in counter drug missions if the 
mission contributes to their military speciality skills or MOS. For 
example, this means a member of National Guard whose MOS is a radio 
specialist could only work in that speciality or if an airman is a 
mechanic he or she could only repair an airplane!
  You won't find anyone in the Guard Bureau or the Department of 
Defense who has ever claimed that counter-drug duty has a negative 
impact on the training and readiness of National Guard personnel. In 
fact, there's empirical evidence that counter-drug duty enhances the 
military readiness of National Guard personnel. And because counter-
drug duty is in addition to the required readiness training, it adds no 
extra readiness training costs. Our amendment will correct this 
problem, deleting the provisions added in the Fiscal Year 1998 bill, 
and allowing the National Guard to continue this supportive role in 
federal, state and local drug demand reduction, as well as interdiction 
missions.
  The amendment would also clarify how National Guard personnel can be 
used in counter-drug activity when providing support to certain youth 
and charitable organizations. Our amendment would amend the definition 
of

[[Page S6671]]

drug interdiction and counter-drug activities to specify that such 
activities include drug demand reduction activities. By providing 
support to youth and charitable organizations as part of state counter-
drug activities, demand reduction has been part of the National Guard 
program since its inception and has had the approval of the Secretary 
of Defense. Language in last year's Defense Authorization bill 
presented major problems in the Guard's ability to interact with these 
groups.
  Our amendment also says that federal funds provided to a state for 
counter-drug activity can be used to procure or lease equipment. 
Current law authorizes leasing, but precludes the procurement of 
equipment. This forces states to lease equipment even though it would 
be more cost effective to purchase the equipment. Examples of equipment 
that would be more cost effective to purchase then lease would be Night 
Vision goggles, Infrared I.D. equipment and Range Finders.
  Mr. President, these are just the highlights of the major provisions 
of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a section by section 
explanation of this amendment be printed in the Record immediately 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. FORD. In closing, I want to tell the members of the Armed 
Services Committee and their staffs how much I appreciate their 
consideration and willingness to accept this amendment. I know they'll 
do the best they can to assure this amendment remains in the final 
bill.

                               Exhibit 1.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

       Subsection (a) would specify that Federal Funds provided to 
     a State under a State plan can be used to procure or lease 
     equipment for the National Guard to use in support of drug 
     interdiction and counter-drug activities. A strict 
     interpretation of the current statutory language would 
     authorize the leasing, but preclude the procurement, of 
     equipment necessary to carry out the purposes of the statute. 
     Such an interpretation would impose unnecessary expenses on 
     the program because it would force states to lease equipment 
     in situations where procuring equipment would be more cost 
     effective. This interpretation would also prevent 
     participation in authorized support missions when necessary 
     equipment cannot be leased. The statute needs to be clarified 
     to ensure that States have flexibility in deciding whether to 
     lease or purchase equipment based on considerations of 
     economy and determinations of necessity.
       Subsection (b) would eliminate the provision in paragraph 
     (b)(2) of section 112 that provides that units and personnel 
     of the National Guard can only perform drug interdiction and 
     counter-drug activities that comply with the requirements of 
     section 2012(d) of title 10, United States Code. Paragraph 
     (b)(2) was enacted as part of the Department of Defense 
     Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998 (public law 105-85) to 
     ensure that the use of units and personnel of the National 
     Guard pursuant to a State drug interdiction and counter-drug 
     activities plan is not detrimental to their training and 
     readiness. However, the restrictions in section 2012(d) are 
     not tailored to address the unique nature of the National 
     Guard drug interdiction and counter-drug program. National 
     Guard personnel may derive readiness and preparedness 
     benefits from their participation in activities under section 
     112, but such activities are in addition to, not in lieu of, 
     required training. If this provision is enacted, National 
     Guard personnel on extended Counterdrug orders will not lose 
     any benefits while performing their required IDT and Annual 
     Training requirements.
       Subsection (b) would also facilitate the accomplishment of 
     training, by adding a new provision to enable National Guard 
     members on extended tours of duty in the drug interdiction 
     and counter-drug program to participate in required IDT and 
     AT with their units without breaking their orders for 
     counter-drug duty. During such training periods, covered 
     individuals would be entitled to the same pay and benefits 
     which they would otherwise receive if continuously performing 
     duty for the purpose of carrying out drug interdiction and 
     counter-drug activities. This will ensure that these 
     individuals, while performing AT, do not lose any of the 
     benefits associated with the longer period of counter-drug 
     duty. This will also clarify that such individuals, while 
     performing IDT, are entitled to pay associated with full-time 
     National Guard duty, but not additional drill pay.
       Subsection (c) would clarify and revise the provision in 
     subsection (b)(3) of section 112 that makes the restrictions 
     in section 508 of title 32 applicable to situations in which 
     units or members of the National Guard are used, pursuant to 
     a State drug interdiction and counter-drug activities plan, 
     to provide support to certain youth and charitable 
     organizations. Under subsections (a)(3) and (a)(4) of section 
     508, services cannot be provided to eligible organizations 
     unless the provision of such services enhances military 
     skills and does not result in a significant increase in the 
     cost of training. Because counter-drug activities are not 
     incidental to training, but are in addition to training, 
     these restrictions present a problem. The proposed revision 
     would eliminate these restrictions, but would continue to 
     make the other provisions in section 508 applicable to 
     situations in which services or assistance are provided to an 
     eligible organization as part of a state counter-drug 
     activities plan.
       Subsection (d) would amend the definition of drug 
     interdiction and counter-drug activities to specify that such 
     activities for purposes of section 112 include drug demand 
     reduction activities. Although drug demand reduction has been 
     part of the activities carried out under section 112 since 
     the inception of the program, the statute needs to be 
     clarified to specifically include such activities to avoid 
     confusion that results from a strict interpretation of the 
     statute. Like any other counter-drug activities, proposed 
     drug demand reduction activities must have a law enforcement 
     nexus in order to be acceptable under a State plan.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe the other side has cleared this 
amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? 
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2740) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2741

    (Purpose: To establish additional requirements relating to the 
                   relocation of Federal frequencies)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which would ensure 
that private sector bidders for the electromagnetic frequency spectrum 
are provided all relevant information regarding the costs that they 
will incur as a result of purchasing that spectrum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2741.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 264, strike out line 17 and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following:

     striking out the second, third, and fourth sentences and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``Any such Federal 
     entity which proposes to so relocate shall notify the NTIA, 
     which in turn shall notify the Commission, before the auction 
     concerned of the marginal costs anticipated to be associated 
     with such relocation or with modifications necessary to 
     accommodate prospective licensees. The Commission in turn 
     shall notify potential bidders of the estimated relocation or 
     modification costs based on the geographic area covered by 
     the proposed licenses before the auction.'';
       On page 266, strike out line 7 and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following:

     trum.
       ``(E) Implementation procedures.--The NTIA and the 
     Commission shall develop procedures for the implementation of 
     this paragraph, which procedures shall include a process for 
     resolving any differences that arise between the Federal 
     Government and commercial licensees regarding estimates of 
     relocation or modification costs under this paragraph.
       ``(F) Inapplicability to certain relocations.--With the 
     exception of spectrum located at 1710-1755 Megahertz, the 
     provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to Federal 
     spectrum identified for reallocation in the first 
     reallocation report submitted to the President and Congress 
     under subsection (a).''.
       (d) Reports on Costs of Relocations.--The head of each 
     department or agency of the Federal Government shall include 
     in the annual budget submission of such department or agency 
     to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a 
     report assessing the costs to be incurred by such department 
     or agency as a result of any frequency relocations of such 
     department or agency that are anticipated under section 113 
     of the National Telecommunications Information Administration 
     Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 923) as of the date of such 
     report.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  I urge the amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?

[[Page S6672]]

  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2741) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2742

 (Purpose: To prohibit members of the Armed Forces from entering into 
 correctional facilities to present decorations to persons who commit 
        certain crimes before being presented such decorations)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, I offer an 
amendment that would prohibit members of the Armed Forces from 
presenting a military award to any person in prisons or correctional 
facilities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mrs. Feinstein, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2742.

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

       At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 531. PROHIBITION ON ENTRY INTO CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES 
                   FOR PRESENTATION OF DECORATIONS TO PERSONS WHO 
                   COMMIT CERTAIN CRIMES BEFORE PRESENTATION.

       (a) Prohibition.--Chapter 57 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1132. Presentation of decorations: prohibition on 
       entering into correctional facilities for certain 
       presentations

       ``(a) Prohibition.--No member of the armed forces may enter 
     into a Federal, State, or local correctional facility for 
     purposes of presenting a decoration to a person who has been 
     convicted of a serious violent felony.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `decoration' means any decoration or award 
     that may be presented or awarded to a member of the armed 
     forces.
       ``(2) The term `serious violent felony' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 3359(c)(2)(F) of title 18.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of that chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``1132. Presentation of decorations: prohibition on entering into 
              correctional facilities for certain presentations.''.

  Mr. LEVIN. I believe the amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it has been agreed to.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2742) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2743

      (Purpose: To make technical amendments relating to military 
                         construction projects)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Levin, I 
offer an amendment which makes certain technical corrections relating 
to several military construction projects incorrectly identified in the 
bill. The technical corrections will have no funding implications.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for himself 
     and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 2743.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 296, in the table following line 10, strike out the 
     item relating to Fort Dix, New Jersey.
       On page 296, in the table following line 10, strike out the 
     item relating to Camp Dawson, West Virginia.
       On page 296, in the table following line 10, strike out 
     ``$627,007,000'' in the amount column in the item relating to 
     the total and insert in lieu thereof ``$604,681,000''.
       On page 298, line 19, strike out ``$2,005,630,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,983,304,000''.
       On page 298, line 22, strike out ``$539,007,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$516,681,000''.
       On page 302, in the table following line 23, strike out the 
     item relating to Naval Air Station, Atlanta, Georgia.
       On page 302, in the table following line 23, strike out 
     ``$39,310,000'' in the amount column of the item relating to 
     Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$11,400,000''.
       On page 302, in the table following line 23, insert after 
     the item relating to Navy Public Works Center, Pearl Harbor, 
     Hawaii, the following new items:


 
 
 
Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Pearl Harbor........      $9,730,000
Naval Station, Pearl Harbor.............................     $18,180,000
 

       On page 302, in the table following line 23, strike out 
     ``$446,984,000'' in the amount column of the item relating to 
     the total and insert in lieu thereof ``$442,884,000''.
       On page 305, line 16, strike out ``$1,741,121,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,737,021,000''.
       On page 305, line 19, strike out ``$433,484,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$429,384,000''.
       On page 307, in the table following line 16, strike out the 
     item relating to McChord Air Force Base, Washington.
       On page 307, in the table following line 16, strike out 
     ``$469,265,000'' in the amount column in the item relating to 
     the total and inserting in lieu thereof ``$465,865,000''.
       On page 310, line 17, strike out ``$1,652,734,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$1,649,334,000''.
       On page 310, line 21, strike out ``$469,265,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$465,865,000''.
       On page 320, line 25, strike out ``$95,395,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$108,990,000''.
       On page 321, line 1, strike out ``$107,378,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$116,109,000''.
       On page 321, line 3, strike out ``$15,271,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ''$19,371,000''.
       On page 321, line 8, strike out ``$20,225,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$23,625,000''.

  Mr. THURMOND. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have cleared this amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2743) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2744

  (Purpose: To waive time limitations for award of the Distinguished-
   Service Cross and Distinguished-Service Medal to certain persons)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Kempthorne, 
Cleland and Akaka, I offer an amendment that would waive the time 
limits for award of the Distinguished Service Cross and Distinguished 
Service Medal to certain persons. I believe this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Kempthorne, for himself, Mr. Cleland and Mr. Akaka proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2744.

  The amendment is as follows:
       Beginning on page 108, strike out line 21 and all that 
     follows through ``(b) Applicability of Waiver.--'' on page 
     109, line 4, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 530. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS FOR AWARD OF CERTAIN 
                   DECORATIONS TO CERTAIN PERSONS.

       (a) Waiver.--Any limitation established by law or policy 
     for the time within which a recommendation for the award of a 
     military decoration or award must be submitted shall

[[Page S6673]]

     not apply to awards of decorations described in this section, 
     the award of each such decoration having been determined by 
     the Secretary of the military department concerned to be 
     warranted in accordance with section 1130 of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (b) Distinguished-Service Cross.--Subsection (a) applies to 
     award of the Distinguished-Service Cross of the Army as 
     follows:
       (1) To Isaac Camacho of El Paso, Texas, for extraordinary 
     heroism in actions at Camp Hiep Hoa in Vietnam on November 
     24, 1963, while serving as a member of the Army.
       (2) To Bruce P. Crandall of Mesa, Arizona, for 
     extraordinary heroism in actions at Landing Zone X-Ray in 
     Vietnam on November 14, 1965, while serving as a member of 
     the Army.
       (3) To Leland B. Fair of Jessieville, Arkansas, for 
     extraordinary heroism in actions in the Philippine Islands on 
     July 4, 1945, while serving as a member of the Army.
       (c) Distinguished-Service Medal.--Subsection (a) applies to 
     award of the Distinguished-Service Medal of the Army to 
     Richard P. Sakakida of Fremont, California, for exceptionally 
     meritorious service while a prisoner of war in the Philippine 
     Islands from May 7, 1942, to September 14, 1945, while 
     serving as a member of the Army.
       (d) Distinguished Flying Cross.--

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joining Senator 
Kempthorne and Senator Cleland, chairman and ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Personnel, in offering an amendment to the 1999 Defense 
Authorization Act that would waive current statutory time limitations 
for award of the Distinguished Service Cross, Distinguished Flying 
Cross, and the Distinguished Service Medal to certain deserving 
veterans.
  Mr. President, I am especially pleased that this amendment will 
enable the Department of the Army to award the Distinguished Service 
Medal (DSM), our third-highest award after the Medal of Honor and 
Distinguished Service Cross, to the late Lt. Colonel Richard Motoso 
Sakakida of Fremont, California. The award would honor Colonel 
Sakakida's meritorious service as an Army intelligence officer and 
undercover agent in the Philippines during World War II.
  Colonel Sakakida, a second-generation Japanese American and former 
Hawaii native, was recruited by Army military intelligence well before 
the attack on Pearl Harbor to conduct undercover activities in the 
Philippines. Then-Sergeant Sakakida served in the Philippines from 1941 
to 1945, first as a covert operative spying on the Japanese community, 
subsequently as a military intelligence staffer for General MacArthur, 
and still later, after giving up a seat on an escape aircraft to a 
fellow nisei, as the only Japanese American prisoner of war captured by 
the Japanese during that conflict.
  While a POW, Sakakida was subjected to severe torture--beatings, 
dislocation of his shoulders, and cigarette burns--by the feared 
Japanese secret police, the kempeitai, without revealing his covert 
status. After gaining the trust of his captors and assigned menial 
tasks in the Judge Advocate's office of the Japanese 14th Army, he was 
able to purloin vital military intelligence, including information on 
troop movements. He reported this information to General MacArthur's 
headquarters in Australia via a secret courier service that he helped 
establish comprising Filipino guerrillas. Some of the information he 
conveyed to the Allies in this way may have contributed to the 
destruction of a Japanese naval task force.
  He also took advantage of his position to aid secretly a number of 
Allied prisoners of war who were being held there for trial for 
attempting to escape; Sakakida smuggled food to them and imaginatively 
interpreted for them during their trials. One of these men, a naval 
officer who would later become an Oklahoma supreme court justice, 
asserted that he escaped execution only through Sakakida's intervention 
and assistance during his trial.
  During this period, Sakakida engaged in perhaps his most daring 
exploit, the jailbreak of hundreds of Filipino guerrillas from a 
Japanese prison. Disguised in a stolen Japanese officer's uniform, he 
managed to free the guerrilla leader Ernest Tupas and hundreds of other 
imprisoned fighters, who later augmented his intelligence pipeline to 
MacArthur. Yet, despite the opportunity for escape that was offered on 
this and other occasions, Sakakida chose to remain a prisoner of war in 
order to continue his undercover work.
  After American forces invaded the Philippines, Sakakida escaped from 
the retreating Japanese forces at Baguio. During a firefight between 
American and Japanese troops, he suffered shrapnel wounds in the 
stomach. For the next several months Sakakida wandered alone in the 
jungle, living off the land, debilitated by his injuries. He finally 
happened upon American troops, whom he eventually convinced of his 
identity. At that point, he was informed that the war was over.
  After the war, Sakakida served with the War Crimes Tribunal, 
obtaining information on war crimes committed by the Japanese in the 
Philippines. He later transferred to the Air Force, where he led a long 
and distinguished career with the Office of Special Investigations.
  Mr. President, aside from a Purple Heart Award and Prisoner of War 
Medal, Colonel Sakakida has yet to be honored with an official U.S. 
military decoration for his amazing service in the Philippines. There 
are a number of reasons for this oversight, but most are attributable 
to the official secrecy surrounding his work, which prevented his story 
from being recognized for what it was until it was too late to consider 
him for an appropriate decoration. When his accomplishments at last 
came to light at a veterans convention in 1991, some of Sakakida's 
supporters, including myself, sought to have him considered for a high 
award for valor; however, the Army refused to consider any award 
applications in Sakakida's behalf on the basis that the statutory 
application deadlines for these awards had expired.
  After numerous failed attempts to waive these rules, an opportunity 
recently presented itself to seek equity for Sakakida under a new 
provision of law (section 526 of Public Law 104-106) that requires the 
military services to review the merits of an application for an award, 
regardless of any statutory time restrictions, if a member of Congress 
submits such an application. Under the measure, if the military 
determines that such an award is merited, it may request a waiver from 
Congress to make the award.
  Last March, pursuant to section 526, I asked the Army to review 
Sakakida's record to determine if he deserved the DSM. In May, the Army 
responded positively to the request and officially recommended that 
Congress grant the late veteran a waiver from all time limits 
pertaining to the award. The amendment that Senator Kempthorne, Senator 
Cleland, and I are offering would effectively grant this waiver, 
clearing the way for the Army to confer the DSM on this amazing 
individual.
  Mr. President, for the late Colonel Sakakida and his wife Cherry, 
this day has been long in the making. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment to ensure that a true American hero can receive his due, 
albeit posthumously. This award means a great deal not only to his 
widow, but to the entire Japanese American community and all those who 
honor military service to their country.
  Should this amendment become law, I would like to recognize the many 
nisei veterans, including members of the all-nisei Military 
Intelligence Service, and other supporters whose enthusiasm sustained 
Sakakida's case. I would also like to single out the efforts of three 
individuals without whose hard work the Army would never have 
considered Sakakida's case: Wayne Kiyosaki, who wrote the definitive 
biography of Colonel Sakakida; Ted Tsukiyama, who served as a key 
historical resource; and, most importantly, Colonel Harry Fukuhara, 
whose tireless advocacy in behalf of the late hero reflects his own 
dedicated service to his nation.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the assistance of Senator Kempthorne, 
Senator Cleland, and Charlie Abell of the Personnel Subcommittee staff 
for their support and guidance on this matter. I eagerly await the day 
when Colonel Sakakida's accomplishments are officially recognized by 
the U.S. Army.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared by this side.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2744) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S6674]]

  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2745

 (Purpose: To reduce the authority in section 1012 to enter into long-
term charters for three vessels in support of submarine rescue, escort, 
                              and towing)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, I offer an 
amendment which authorizes the Navy to enter into charter agreements 
for up to 5 years for three vessels used in support of submarine 
rescue, escort and towing. I believe this amendment has been cleared by 
the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 2745.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike out section 1012, and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:

     SEC. 1012. LONG-TERM CHARTER OF THREE VESSELS IN SUPPORT OF 
                   SUBMARINE RESCUE, ESCORT, AND TOWING.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Navy may to enter into 
     one or more long-term charters in accordance with section 
     2401 of title 10, United States Code, for three vessels to 
     support the rescue, escort, and towing of submarines.
       (b) Vessels.--The vessels that may be chartered under 
     subsection (a) are as follows:
       (1) The Carolyn Chouest (United States official number 
     D102057).
       (2) The Kellie Chouest (United States official number 
     D1038519).
       (3) The Dolores Chouest (United States official number 
     D600288).
       (c) Charter Period.--The period for which a vessel is 
     chartered under subsection (a) may not extend beyond October 
     1, 2004.
       (d) Funding.--The funds used for charters entered into 
     under subsection (a) shall be funds authorized to be 
     appropriated under section 301(a)(2).

  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  Mr. THURMOND. The amendment has been cleared. I urge the Senate adopt 
the amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2745) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2746

  (Purpose: To broaden the eligibility for diving duty special pay to 
include personnel who maintain proficiency as a diver while serving in 
           a position for which diving is a nonprimary duty)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, I offer an 
amendment that would broaden the eligibility for giving special duty 
pay in the Navy. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] for Mr. 
     McCain proposes an amendment numbered 2746.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 620. DIVING DUTY SPECIAL PAY FOR DIVERS HAVING DIVING 
                   DUTY AS A NONPRIMARY DUTY.

       (a) Eligibility for Maintaining Proficiency.--Section 
     304(a)(3) of title 37, United States Code, is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(3) either--
       ``(A) actually performs diving duty while serving in an 
     assignment for which diving is a primary duty; or
       ``(B) meets the requirements to maintain proficiency as 
     described in paragraph (2) while serving in an assignment 
     that includes diving duty other than as a primary duty.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1998, and shall apply with 
     respect to months beginning on or after that date.

  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
authorizes the Department of Defense to continue ``Special Pay: Diving 
Duty'' for Career Divers in assignments where diving is performed as a 
non-primary duty.
  This amendment will allow the services to continue dive pay for 
individual career divers who maintain diving currency while serving in 
critical shore and staff assignments in execution of ``duty of diving'' 
orders.
  The services plan, as a part of the FY00 legislative review process, 
to incorporate this clear policy regarding dive pay. The Navy intends, 
in FY99, to terminate dive pay for divers on shore and staff duty 
pending legislative clarification. Terminating this pay for the 
intervening year would alienate each and every service member affected. 
It also makes no sense.
  Accepting this amendment will be cost neutral. It simply allows the 
services to continue paying these critical personnel in the same manner 
as they are currently being paid. In fact, as in previous years, the FY 
1999 Presidential Budget Request includes the funds for this special 
pay.
  The costs associated with rejecting this amendment are much more 
dear. It will cost 4.5 times more to retrain career divers whose 
qualifications expire than it would to have those same personnel 
maintain currency. Additionally--and more importantly--terminating this 
pay for Army divers, Navy SEALs, Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel 
and Air Force Para-rescue members, will take money out of the pockets 
of the very highly skilled personnel that the services are desperately 
struggling to retain.
  Mr. President, this amendment provides a simple, fiscally smart 
solution to maintaining critical diving skills for our armed services, 
and at the same time, sends a positive message to our service 
personnel. I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge the Senate adopt the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2746) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2747

    (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into 
    multiyear contracts under certain aircraft procurement programs)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Coats and Glenn, I 
offer an amendment which would provide authority for the Department of 
Defense to enter into multiyear contracts for the T-45, E-2C, and AV-8B 
aircraft. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Coats, for himself and Mr. Glenn, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2747.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 124. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN 
                   AIRCRAFT PROGRAMS.

       Beginning with the fiscal year 1999 program year, the 
     Secretary of the Navy may, in accordance with section 2306b 
     of title 10, United States Code, enter into multiyear 
     contracts for the procurement of the following aircraft:
       (1) The AV-8B aircraft.
       (2) The E-2C aircraft.
       (1) The T-45 aircraft.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the administration has requested authority 
to enter into multi year contract on these three aircraft. Multi-year 
procurement of these three aircraft is cost effective and has the 
commitment of the Department of Defense. I support the initiative as a 
prudent step to ensure we have efficient acquisition of mature defense 
systems.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge the amendment be adopted.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2747) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S6675]]

                           Amendment No. 2748

 (Purpose: To transfer $15,895,000 between Navy authorizations for the 
                   remote minehunting system program)

  Mr. THURMOND. On behalf of Senator Warner, I offer an amendment which 
authorizes a realignment of funds from Other Procurement, Navy, to 
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, in the fiscal year 
1999 remote minehunting system program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 2748.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 14, line 16, reduce the amount by $15,895,000.
       On page 29, line 2, increase the amount by $15,895,000.

  Mr. THURMOND. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2748) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2749

(Purpose: To modify the authority relating to the Department of Defense 
            Laboratory Revitalization Demonstration Program)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Levin, 
Santorum and Lieberman, I offer an amendment which would extend the 
authority relating to the Department of Defense Laboratory 
Revitalization Demonstration Program for 5 years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for 
     himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Santorum and Mr. Lieberman, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2749.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 347, below line 23, add the following:

     SEC. 2833. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY RELATING TO DEPARTMENT 
                   OF DEFENSE LABORATORY REVITALIZATION 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Requirements.--Subsection (c) of section 2892 
     of the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 1996 
     (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 590; 10 U.S.C. 2805 note) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Program Requirements.--(1) Not later than 30 days 
     before commencing the program, the Secretary shall establish 
     procedures for the review and approval of requests from 
     Department of Defense laboratories for construction under the 
     program.
       ``(2) The laboratories at which construction may be carried 
     out under the program may not include Department of Defense 
     laboratories that are contractor-owned.''.
       (b) Report.--Subsection (d) of that section is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(d) Report.--Not later than February 1, 2003, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the program. 
     The report shall include the Secretary's conclusions and 
     recommendation regarding the desirability of making the 
     authority set forth under subsection (b) permanent.''.
       (c) Extension.--Subsection (g) of that section is amended 
     by striking out ``September 30, 1998'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``September 30, 2003''.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an amendment that 
would extend by five years the Department of Defense Laboratory 
Revitalization Demonstration Program. I am pleased to be joined by 
Senators Levin, Santorum, and Lieberman, in sponsoring this amendment. 
Senator Santorum, as the Chairman of the Acquisition and Technology 
Subcommittee, has been one of the strongest advocates for strengthening 
our Nation's defense research and development capabilities and I want 
to thank him for that leadership.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the original two-year 
Laboratory Revitalization Demonstration Program in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. The purpose of the legislation 
was to afford the Secretary of Defense the flexibility to improve 
laboratory operations. The specific authority included:
  A raise in the minor construction threshold from $1.5 million to $3.0 
million for projects that the Secretary concerned may carry out without 
specific authorization.
  A raise in the threshold for unspecified construction projects for 
which operations and maintenance funds may be used from $300,000 to 
$1.0 million.
  A raise in the threshold for minor military construction projects 
requiring prior approval by the Secretary concerned from $500,000 to 
$1.5 million.
  These authorities extended for a two-year period and will expire 
September 30, 1998, unless specifically renewed by Congress. The 
legislation also directed the Secretary to submit a report to the 
Congress regarding the program and specifically provide recommendations 
as to whether this authority should be extended to all DoD 
laboratories.
  On May 14, 1998, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, John Hamre, 
submitted the required report with the recommendation that the 
authority should be extended to all DoD owned laboratories and test 
centers for a five-year full demonstration program.
  Mr. President, the experience gained from the two-year demonstration 
has shown that this program works and that it should be expanded to all 
laboratories and test centers for a limited time period for further 
evaluation. Our amendment would support Dr. Hamre's recommendation. At 
the conclusion of the test the Secretary of Defense would be required 
to submit a report on the program along with a recommendation regarding 
the desirability of making the authority permanent.
  Mr. President, our amendment would not require any additional funds 
and would not impose any additional fiscal burden on the Department of 
Defense. It does hold out the possibility of improving the facilities 
that conduct the important research and tests on the Nation's military 
capabilities.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other side. I urge 
the Senate adopt the amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2749) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2750

 (Purpose: To redesignate the position of Director of Defense Research 
and Engineering, abolish the position of Assistant to the Secretary of 
 Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, and 
   transfer the duties of the latter position to the former position)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment that would change the 
name of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, DDR&E, to 
Director, Defense Technology and Counter-proliferation, and would also 
abolish the position of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for 
Nuclear, Chemical and Biological matters and move the Nuclear Weapons 
Council responsibilities now carried out by that position to the 
renamed Director, Defense Technology and Counterproliferation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2750.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 196, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

     SEC. 908. REDESIGNATION OF DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND 
                   ENGINEERING AS DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 
                   AND COUNTERPROLIFERATION AND TRANSFER OF 
                   RESPONSIBILITIES.

       (a) Redesignation.--Subsection (a) of section 137 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``Director 
     of Defense Research and Engineering'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``Director of Defense Technology and 
     Counterproliferation''.
       (b) Duties.--Subsection (b) of such section 137 is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) The Director of Defense Technology and 
     Counterproliferation shall--
       ``(1) except as otherwise prescribed by the Secretary of 
     Defense, perform such duties relating to research and 
     engineering as the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 
     and Technology may prescribe;
       ``(2) advise the Secretary of Defense on matters relating 
     to nuclear energy and nuclear weapons;
       ``(3) serve as the Staff Director of the Joint Nuclear 
     Weapons Council under section 179 of this title; and
       ``(4) perform such other duties as the Secretary of Defense 
     may prescribe.''.
       (c) Abolishment of Position of Assistant to the Secretary 
     of Defense for Nuclear

[[Page S6676]]

     and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs.--Section 142 of 
     such title is repealed.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended as follows:
       (A) In section 5315, by striking out ``Director of Defense 
     Research and Engineering'' and inserting in lieu thereof the 
     following:
       ``Director of Defense Technology and 
     Counterproliferation''.
       (B) In section 5316, by striking out ``Assistant to the 
     Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological 
     Defense Programs, Department of Defense.''.
       (2) Title 10, United States Code, is amended as follows:
       (A) In section 131(b), by striking out paragraph (6) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(6) Director of Defense Technology and 
     Counterproliferation.''.
       (B) In section 138(d), by striking out ``Director of 
     Defense Research and Engineering'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``Director of Defense Technology and 
     Counterproliferation''.
       (C) In section 179(c)(2), by striking out ``Assistant to 
     the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and 
     Biological Defense Programs'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``Director of Defense Technology and Counterproliferation''.
       (D) In section 2350a(g)(3), by striking out ``Deputy 
     Director, Defense Research and Engineering (Test and 
     Evaluation)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Under secretary 
     of Defense for Acquisition and Technology''.
       (E) In section 2617(a), by striking out ``Director of 
     Defense Research and Engineering'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``Director of Defense Technology and 
     Counterproliferation''.
       (F) In section 2902(b), by striking out paragraph (1) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(1) The Director of Defense Technology and 
     Counterproliferation.''.
       (3) Section 257(a) of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (10 U.S.C. 2358 note) is amended by 
     striking out ``Director of Defense Research and Engineering'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``Director of Defense 
     Technology and Counterproliferation''.
       (4) The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     1994 is amended as follows:
       (A) In section 802(a) (10 U.S.C. 2358 note), by striking 
     out ``Director of Defense Research and Engineering'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``Director of Defense Technology 
     and Counterproliferation''.
       (B) In section 1605(a)(5), (22 U.S.C. 2751 note) by 
     striking out ``Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for 
     Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``Director of Defense Technology 
     and Counterproliferation''.
       (e) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The section heading of 
     section 137 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 137. Director of Defense Technology and 
       Counterproliferation''.

       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 4 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking out the item relating to section 137 and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:

``137. Director of Defense Technology and Counterproliferation.''; and

       (B) by striking out the item relating to section 142.

  Mr. LEVIN. I believe the amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2750) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2751

  (Purpose: To make technical corrections to section 802, relating to 
                    procurement of travel services)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which would make 
certain technical corrections relating to section 802, the procurement 
of travel services. This amendment corrects a reference cited in the 
original provision and clarifies the year in which a travel rebate may 
be charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2751.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 160, beginning on line 9, strike out ``amount'' and 
     all that follows through ``section 3202(1)'' on line 17, and 
     insert in lieu thereof the following:

     amounts were charged.
       ``(B) For amounts relating to sales for unofficial travel, 
     deposit in nonappropriated fund accounts available for 
     morale, welfare, and recreation programs.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `head of an agency' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 2302(1)

  Mr. THURMOND. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge the Senate adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2751) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2752

 (Purpose: To require a plan for facilitating a rapid transition from 
  successfully completed research under the Small Business Innovation 
          Research Program into defense acquisition programs)

  Mr. THURMOND. On behalf of Senator Warner, I offer an amendment which 
would require the Department of Defense to give greater consideration 
to funding research and development projects started under the Small 
Business Innovative Research Program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] for Mr. 
     Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 2752.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. 812. PLAN FOR RAPID TRANSITION FROM COMPLETION OF SMALL 
                   BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH INTO DEFENSE 
                   ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Plan Required.--Not later than February 1, 1999, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security 
     of the House of Representatives a plan for facilitating the 
     rapid transition into Department of Defense acquisition 
     programs of successful first phase and second phase 
     activities under the Small Business Innovation Research 
     program under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     638).
       (b) Conditions.--The plan submitted under subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) be consistent with the Small Business Innovation 
     Research program and with recent acquisition reforms that are 
     applicable to the Department of Defense; and
       (2) provide--
       (A) a high priority for funding the projects under the 
     Small Business Innovation Research program that are likely to 
     be successful under a third phase agreement entered into 
     pursuant to section 9(r) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     638(r)); and
       (B) for favorable consideration, in the acquisition 
     planning process, for funding projects under the Small 
     Business Innovation Research program that are subject to a 
     third phase agreement described in subparagraph (A).

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
Defense Authorization Bill that will begin to address concerns that I 
have with regard to the ability of high technology, small businesses to 
compete in the defense acquisition arena. This amendment, I hope, will 
lay the groundwork for reforming the acquisition and budgeting process 
so that the Department of Defense can take greater advantage of 
technological innovations developed by small, high-tech companies. The 
amendment does not change any law or policy, it simply directs the 
Secretary of Defense to investigate ways that the Department of Defense 
could improve the acquisition process so as to enable the rapid 
incorporation of high technology innovations into existing defense 
programs.
  Mr. President, small businesses generate a disproportionately large 
share of the technological innovations in this country. Studies have 
found that small businesses originate more than two times as many 
innovations per employee as large businesses.
  The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program was created by 
the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982. It is intended 
to stimulate technological innovation by using small businesses to meet 
federal research and development needs. The SBIR program has proven to 
be a highly effective way of leveraging the creativity of small, high 
technology companies. A 1997 Government Accounting Office (GAO) study 
of the Department of Defense's SBIR program concluded that ``quality 
projects are being funded.''
  The SBIR program provides small businesses with the opportunity to 
demonstrate innovative ideas that

[[Page S6677]]

meet the specific research and development needs of the Department of 
Defense. Under Phases I and II of the program--the research and 
development phases--small businesses can develop and prove their ideas. 
Phase III of the SBIR program is for the acquisition and procurement of 
successful projects. Due to the rapid pace of technological change, the 
innovative products developed under the SBIR program often have direct 
applicability to ongoing major defense acquisition programs, where 
incorporation of the product could immediately result in performance 
improvement and/or cost reduction. The problem lies in taking a worthy 
high technology project--one that could provide an immediate benefit to 
an ongoing defense program--and moving rapidly from SBIR's Phases I and 
II (R&D), to Phase III (acquisition).
  In the current environment, where major defense acquisition programs 
are often contracted with a single large contractor, it is difficult 
for a small business to get their high tech innovation inserted into 
the acquisition cycle. The amendment that I am introducing simply 
directs the Secretary of Defense to investigate and report on processes 
that would facilitate the rapid transition of successful SBIR projects 
into DoD acquisition programs. My goal is to lay the foundation for 
changes that will improve the incorporation of high technology 
innovation in defense programs.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge the Senate adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2752) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2753

     (Purpose: To set aside RDT&E funds for a NATO alliance ground 
                    surveillance concept definition)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, I offer an 
amendment that provides authority for the Department of Defense to set 
aside funds for a NATO alliance ground surveillance concept definition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin, for Mr. Lieberman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2753.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 219. NATO ALLIANCE GROUND SURVEILLANCE CONCEPT 
                   DEFINITION.

       Amounts authorized to be appropriated under subtitle A are 
     available for a NATO alliance ground surveillance concept 
     definition that is based on the Joint Surveillance Target 
     Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) Radar Technology Insertion 
     Program (RTIP) sensor of the United States, as follows:
       (1) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 201(1), $6,400,000.
       (2) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 201(3), $3,500,000.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, last year DOD had an initiative to have 
NATO adopt the JSTARS system as the NATO alliance ground surveillance 
system, but NATO subsequently decided not to acquire the B-707-based US 
JSTARS aircraft.
  After that decision, the US offered a concept to integrate a variant 
of the US JSTARS Radar Technology Insertion Program (RTIP) sensor into 
an aircraft of NATO's choice. In April, NATO's Conference of National 
Armaments Directors (CNAD) approved a one year concept definition study 
to flesh out this alternative. However, the April decision was too late 
to affect the budget request, so that unless the Department gets the 
authority that would be provided by this amendment, the concept 
definition effort would slip by a year.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2753) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2754

   (Purpose: To provide a period of open enrollment for the Survivor 
                             Benefit Plan)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, I offer an 
amendment that provides for 1-year open season to permit active and 
reserve military retirees the opportunity to enroll in the Survivor 
Benefit Plan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 2754.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 634. SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN OPEN ENROLLMENT PERIOD.

       (a) Persons Not Currently Participating in Survivor Benefit 
     Plan.--
       (1) Election of sbp coverage.--An eligible retired or 
     former member may elect to participate in the Survivor 
     Benefit Plan during the open enrollment period specified in 
     subsection (d).
       (2) Election of supplemental annuity coverage.--An eligible 
     retired or former member who elects under paragraph (1) to 
     participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan may also elect 
     during the open enrollment period to participate in the 
     Supplemental Survivor Benefit Plan.
       (3) Eligible retired or former member.--For purposes of 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), an eligible retired or former member 
     is a member or former member of the uniformed services who on 
     the day before the first day of the open enrollment period is 
     not a participant in the Survivor Benefit Plan and--
       (A) is entitled to retired pay; or
       (B) would be entitled to retired pay under chapter 1223 of 
     title 10, United States Code (or chapter 67 of such title as 
     in effect before October 5, 1994), but for the fact that such 
     member or former member is under 60 years of age.
       (4) Status under sbp of persons making elections.--
       (A) Standard annuity.--A person making an election under 
     paragraph (1) by reason of eligibility under paragraph (3)(A) 
     shall be treated for all purposes as providing a standard 
     annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan.
       (B) Reserve-component annuity.--A person making an election 
     under paragraph (1) by reason of eligibility under paragraph 
     (3)(B) shall be treated for all purposes as providing a 
     reserve-component annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan.
       (b) Manner of Making Elections.--
       (1) In general.--An election under this section must be 
     made in writing, signed by the person making the election, 
     and received by the Secretary concerned before the end of the 
     open enrollment period. Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     any such election shall be made subject to the same 
     conditions, and with the same opportunities for designation 
     of beneficiaries and specification of base amount, that apply 
     under the Survivor Benefit Plan or the Supplemental Survivor 
     Benefit Plan, as the case may be. A person making an election 
     under subsection (a) to provide a reserve-component annuity 
     shall make a designation described in section 1448(e) of 
     title 10, United States Code.
       (2) Election must be voluntary.--An election under this 
     section is not effective unless the person making the 
     election declares the election to be voluntary. An election 
     to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan under this 
     section may not be required by any court. An election to 
     participate or not to participate in the Survivor Benefit 
     Plan is not subject to the concurrence of a spouse or former 
     spouse of the person.
       (c) Effective Date for Elections.--Any such election shall 
     be effective as of the first day of the first calendar month 
     following the month in which the election is received by the 
     Secretary concerned.
       (d) Open Enrollment Period Defined.--The open enrollment 
     period is the one-year period beginning on March 1, 1999.
       (e) Effect of Death of Person Making Election Within Two 
     Years of Making Election.--If a person making an election 
     under this section dies before the end of the two-year period 
     beginning on the effective date of the election, the election 
     is void and the amount of any reduction in retired pay of the 
     person that is attributable to the election shall be paid in 
     a lump sum to the person who would have been the deceased 
     person's beneficiary under the voided election if the 
     deceased person had died after the end of such two-year 
     period.
       (f) Applicability of Certain Provisions of Law.--The 
     provisions of sections 1449, 1453, and 1454 of title 10, 
     United States Code, are applicable to a person making an 
     election, and to an election, under this section in the same 
     manner as if the election were made under the Survivor 
     Benefit Plan or the Supplemental Survivor Benefit Plan, as 
     the case may be.
       (g) Premiums for Open Enrollment Election.--

[[Page S6678]]

       (1) Premiums to be charged.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     prescribe in regulations premiums which a person electing 
     under this section shall be required to pay for participating 
     in the Survivor Benefit Plan pursuant to the election. The 
     total amount of the premiums to be paid by a person under the 
     regulations shall be equal to the sum of--
       (A) the total amount by which the retired pay of the person 
     would have been reduced before the effective date of the 
     election if the person had elected to participate in the 
     Survivor Benefit Plan (for the same base amount specified in 
     the election) at the first opportunity that was afforded the 
     member to participate under chapter 73 of title 10, United 
     States Code;
       (B) interest on the amounts by which the retired pay of the 
     person would have been so reduced, computed from the dates on 
     which the retired pay would have been so reduced at such rate 
     or rates and according to such methodology as the Secretary 
     of Defense determines reasonable; and
       (C) any additional amount that the Secretary determines 
     necessary to protect the actuarial soundness of the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund against any 
     increased risk for the fund that is associated with the 
     election.
       (2) Premiums to be credited to retirement fund.--Premiums 
     paid under the regulations shall be credited to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund.
       (h) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``Survivor Benefit Plan'' means the program 
     established under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, 
     United States Code.
       (2) The term ``Supplemental Survivor Benefit Plan'' means 
     the program established under subchapter III of chapter 73 of 
     title 10, United States Code.
       (3) The term ``retired pay'' includes retainer pay paid 
     under section 6330 of title 10, United States Code.
       (4) The terms ``uniformed services'' and ``Secretary 
     concerned'' have the meanings given those terms in section 
     101 of title 37, United States Code.
       (5) The term ``Department of Defense Military Retirement 
     Fund'' means the Department of Defense Military Retirement 
     Fund established under section 1461(a) of title 10, United 
     States Code.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, since its enactment some 26 years ago, the 
Survivor Benefit Plan has been a source of financial security for 
military retirees and their dependents. Should the military retiree 
pre-decease his or her spouse, the plan allows for the spouse to 
continue to receive a percentage of the retiree's income benefit. This 
is a program that truly works for our retirees, those who dedicated a 
large portion of their lives to the service of their country, and I 
strongly support its continuation.
  In the past, Congress has understood that changes occur in the lives 
of military retirees and has tailored the Survivor Benefit Program 
accordingly. Retirement from the military is unlike retirement from any 
other type of employment. Military personnel generally retire in their 
late 30s or early 40s. They spend a large portion of their lives in 
military retirement. During this period, their lives can change 
significantly. The circumstances in which they found themselves at the 
time of their retirement may be dramatically altered over the years. 
Admittedly, this is more the exception than the rule, but for some 
retirees it is a fact of life.
  The Congress has previously offered limited open enrollment periods, 
or ``open seasons'' for retirees to participate in the Survivor Benefit 
Plan: once in 1981 and again in 1991. These open seasons are a 
recognition of the fact that some retirees who initially did not elect 
to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan have found themselves in 
circumstances where they would welcome the opportunity to participate 
in the Plan. In the case of the first two open seasons, retirees who 
entered the program after their retirement date were required to pay a 
lump sum amount appropriate to what they would have paid since their 
retirement date. This ensured that the system was fair to those who 
chose to enroll upon retirement.
  I believe it is once again time to offer an open season to address 
the concerns of a small number of retirees who are interested in 
participating in the plan. The amendment that I am offering allows 
retirees who had not elected to participate in the Survivor Benefit 
Plan at the time of their retirement the opportunity to do so. The 
enrollment period would be limited to one year and would require a lump 
sum payment by the retiree in the amount that he or she would have paid 
in premiums, with accrued interest, since the date of their retirement. 
The amendment also allows the defense secretary to make adjustments to 
the retirees premium to ensure the actuarial soundness of the Plan's 
fund.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about 
the amendment my friend, Senator Warner, has offered concerning an open 
season for enrollment in the military Survivor Benefit Program.
  I understand my colleague's views that it is time to offer the 
possibility of enrollment in this plan to retirees who have, under 
different circumstances, chosen not to enroll.
  I have been told that the Department of Defense has determined that 
the amendment, as written, is actuarially sound. As I understand it, 
that means that this amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to set 
premiums for those who enroll during the proposed open season so that 
these individuals pay back amounts equal to the amounts they would have 
paid had they enrolled upon retirement.
  According to DOD, this amendment is not unfair in a monetary sense to 
those who enrolled upon retirement and have been paying premiums into 
this program since that time.
  Nonetheless, I still have several concerns. This amendment would 
allow all retirees, regardless of the state of their health, to buy 
into the program and, in effect, purchase annuities for their spouses 
that could cover any number of years. Even though the Department 
believes the amendment to be actuarially sound, this could, in my view, 
work to the detriment of the military retirement fund from which 
survivors' annuities are paid.
  What if all the new enrollees were terminally ill? A 90-year old 
retiree could conceivably enroll under the Warner amendment, pay 
premiums for two years and then leave an annuity for his survivors that 
would be paid from the retirement funds for a long time.
  I also remain concerned about the effect this open season would have 
on the tendency of younger military personnel to enroll in the program 
upon retirement. I am concerned that an open season like this would 
serve as a disincentive to enrollment by encouraging service men and 
women not to enroll at the time they retire and, instead, gamble that 
Congress will authorize another open season at some point before they 
die. If this is the case, it would not be in the best interests of the 
program or the service members.
  Because of these concerns and the Department's objections, I look 
forward to working with Senator Warner between now and the end of 
conference to address these concerns.
  Mr. THURMOND. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side. I urge the Senate adopt the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2754) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2755

 (Purpose: To revise a definition of the term ``senior executive'' for 
purposes of the limitation on allowability of compensation for certain 
                         contractor personnel)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Thompson, Glenn, 
Thurmond, Levin, Santorum and Lieberman, I offer an amendment which 
clarifies the current statutory limitations with regard to the 
reimbursement of executive compensation under Government contracts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Thompson, for himself, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Levin, 
     Mr. Santorum and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2755.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. 812. SENIOR EXECUTIVES COVERED BY LIMITATION ON 
                   ALLOWABILITY OF COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN 
                   CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL.

       (a) Defense Contracts.--Section 2324(l)(5) of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

[[Page S6679]]

       ``(5) The term `senior executive', with respect to a 
     contractor, means the five most highly compensated employees 
     in management positions at each home office and segment of 
     the contractor.''.
       (b) Non-Defense Contracts.--Section 306(m)(2) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 256(m)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) The term `senior executive', with respect to a 
     contractor, means the five most highly compensated employees 
     in management positions at each home office and segment of 
     the contractor.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 39(c)(2) of the Office 
     of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 435(c)(2)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) The term `senior executive', with respect to a 
     contractor, means the five most highly compensated employees 
     in management positions at each home office and segment of 
     the contractor.''.

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I will offer three technical amendments 
on behalf of myself as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee 
and Senator Glenn, the Committee's ranking minority member, and 
Senators Thurmond, Levin, Santorum, and Lieberman. Senator Glenn and I 
thank the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee 
for their cooperation and assistance in preparing these amendments 
which will benefit not only the procurement process within the 
Department of Defense, but other agencies across the Federal Government 
as well.


                         executive compensation

  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 included 
a provision prohibiting executive agencies from reimbursing the 
salaries (in cost-type contracts) of contractors' senior executives in 
excess of the median income for senior executives in all publicly-
traded corporations ($340,000 per year). The provision was intended to 
apply to the five most highly-paid executives of a defense contractor, 
and of each division of the contractor. However, the provision caused 
unnecessary confusion as to which contractor officials were covered, 
because it used terms that are not currently defined in statute or 
regulation.
  The proposed amendment would address this problem by defining 
``senior executives'' of a contractor as ``the five most highly 
compensated employees in management positions at each home office and 
segment of the contractor.'' The terms ``home office'' and ``segment'' 
are defined in regulation (subpart 31.001 of the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation and Cost Accounting Standard 403-30(a)) and are understood 
by both government and private sector procurement officials.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge the Senate adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 2755) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2756

(Purpose: To apply certain revisions of commercial pricing regulations 
                            government wide)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Thompson, Glenn, 
Thurmond, Levin, Santorum, and Lieberman, I offer an amendment which 
extends to civilian agencies the requirements under section 805 of the 
bill to issue regulations clarifying procedures for establishing 
reasonableness of the prices charged for sole-sourced commercial items.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Thompson, for himself, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Levin, 
     Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2756.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 162, strike out line 23 and all that 
     follows through ``that clarify'' on page 163, line 2, and 
     insert in lieu thereof the following:

     ``or subsection (b)(1)(B) of section 304A of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 
     254b), from the requirements for submission of certified cost 
     or pricing data under that section.
       ``(c) Commercial Pricing Regulations.--(1) The Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation issued in accordance with sections 6 
     and 25 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act shall 
     be revised to clarify''.

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, section 805 of the bill contains the 
``Defense Commercial Pricing Management Improvement Act,'' which is 
designed to improve DoD's management practices and help address the 
spare parts pricing problems identified in the Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Acquisition & Technology hearing on March 18. Among 
other things, section 805 would require the Secretary of Defense to 
issue regulations clarifying the procedures and methods to be used in 
determining the reasonableness of prices charged for sole-source 
commercial items.
  The amendment would provide that the regulations should be issued on 
a government-wide basis, as a part of the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation and applicable to all federal procurements, rather than 
being issued by the Secretary of Defense and applicable only to DoD 
procurements. This change is consistent with the Senate's ten-year 
effort to place DoD and civilian agency procurements on an equal 
statutory footing.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge the Senate adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 2756) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2757

 (Purpose: To prevent the automatic application to a subcontract of an 
 exceptional waiver of requirements for submission of cost or pricing 
        data that is granted in the case of the prime contract)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Thompson, Glenn, 
Thurmond, Levin, Santorum, and Lieberman, I offer an amendment which 
provides specific authority for the heads of Government agencies to 
waive requirements for subcontractors to provide certified costs and 
pricing data under the Truth in Negotiations Act in exceptional in 
cases in which prime contractors are not required to provide such data.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Thompson, for himself, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Levin, 
     Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2757.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. 812. SEPARATE DETERMINATIONS OF EXCEPTIONAL WAIVERS OF 
                   TRUTH IN NEGOTIATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIME 
                   CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS.

       (a) Defense Procurements.--Section 2306a(a)(5) of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) A waiver of requirements for submission of certified 
     cost or pricing data that is granted under subsection 
     (b)(1)(C) in the case of a contract or subcontract does not 
     waive the requirement under paragraph (1)(C) for submission 
     of cost or pricing data in the case of subcontracts under 
     that contract or subcontract unless the head of the agency 
     concerned determines that the requirement under that 
     paragraph should be waived in the case of such subcontracts 
     and justifies in writing the reasons for the 
     determination.''.
       (b) Non-Defense Procurements.--Section 304A(a)(5) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 254b(a)(5)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) A waiver of requirements for submission of certified 
     cost or pricing data that is granted under subsection 
     (b)(1)(C) in the case of a contract or subcontract does not 
     waive the requirement under paragraph (1)(C) for submission 
     of cost or pricing data in the case of subcontracts under 
     that contract or subcontract unless the head of the executive 
     agency concerned determines that the requirement under that 
     paragraph should be waived in the case of such subcontracts 
     and justifies in writing the reasons for the 
     determination.''.

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, the Truth In Negotiations Act authorizes 
agencies to waive the requirement for contractors to provide certified 
cost or pricing data in ``exceptional circumstances.'' Under current 
law, however, a subcontractor under a contract or subcontract for which 
an exceptional circumstances waiver has been granted may still be 
subject to the requirement to provide certified cost or pricing data.

[[Page S6680]]

  The administration has requested a change to this law to provide that 
exceptional circumstances waivers extend not only to a contract or 
subcontract, but also to subcontractors under that contract or 
subcontract. The proposed amendment would give agencies the authority 
to grant waivers that extend to subcontractors under a contract or 
subcontract, but would not require that they do so in every case. In 
addition, it would make a technical change to correct a section 
reference.
  At the same time, the sponsors of the amendment are concerned by some 
of the statements made by the Administration in submitting the proposed 
amendment. The section-by-section analysis of the Administration 
proposal contains the following statements:

       The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act revised [the Truth 
     in Negotiations Act] to permit the head of the procuring 
     activity to grant waivers, rather than the head of the 
     agency. In response to the legislative change, the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation was revised to encourage the use of 
     waivers when the contracting officer can determine the 
     contract price to be fair and reasonable without the 
     submission of cost or pricing data. As a result, more waivers 
     are being granted today than previously.
       If the government does not require certified cost or 
     pricing data from a prime contractor because contract price 
     can be determined to be fair and reasonable without the 
     submission of such data, then it should be presumed that 
     there is no need to collect the data from lower tiers.

  The sponsors disagree with the implication that a waiver is 
appropriate whenever a contracting officer thinks that he can determine 
the contract price to be fair and reasonable without the submission of 
cost or pricing data. The Truth In Negotiations Act, as amended, still 
specifies that a waiver may be granted only in ``exceptional 
circumstances.''
  It is the view of the sponsors that the term ``exceptional 
circumstances'' requires more than the mere belief of the contracting 
officer that it may be possible to determine the contract price to be 
fair and reasonable without the submission of cost or pricing data. For 
example, a waiver may be appropriate in circumstances where it would be 
possible to determine price reasonableness without the submission of 
cost or pricing data and the contracting officer determines that it 
would not be possible to enter a contract with a particular contractor 
in the absence of a waiver.
  The amendment would give agencies the flexibility to extend 
exceptional circumstances waivers to subcontractors when it is 
appropriate to do so. However, it is the expectation of the sponsors 
that the executive branch will clarify the circumstances in which an 
``exceptional circumstances'' waiver may be granted, consistent with 
the understanding of Congress, as expressed in this statement.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge the Senate adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 2757) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2758

(Purpose: To amend title 10, United States Code, to require physicians 
providing military health care to possess unrestricted licenses, and to 
 require the establishment of a system for monitoring the satisfaction 
      of applicable continuing medical education requirements the 
                    satisfaction by those physician)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators DeWine and Inhofe, 
I offer an amendment that requires physicians to possess unrestricted 
medical licenses and requires the Secretary of Defense to establish a 
mechanism to ensure military physicians meet the continuing education 
requirements for their State license.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     DeWine, for himself, and Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2758.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC.   . PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF PHYSICIANS PROVIDING 
                   MILITARY HEALTH CARE.

       (a) Requirement for Unrestricted License.--Section 
     1094(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``In the case of a 
     physician, the physician may not provide health care as a 
     physician under this chapter unless the current license is an 
     unrestricted license that is not subject to limitation on the 
     scope of practice ordinarily granted to other physicians for 
     a similar specialty by the jurisdiction that granted the 
     license.''.
       (b) Satisfaction of Continuing Medical Education 
     Requirements.--(1) Chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1094 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1094a. Continuing medical education requirements: 
       system for monitoring physician compliance

       ``The Secretary of Defense shall establish a mechanism for 
     ensuring that each person under the jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary of a military department who provides health care 
     under this chapter as a physician satisfies the continuing 
     medical education requirements applicable to the 
     physician.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1094a. Continuing medical education requirements: system for 
              monitoring physician compliance.''.

       (c) Effective Dates.--(1) The amendment made by subsection 
     (a) shall take effect on October 1, 1998.
       (2) The system required by section 1094a of title 10, 
     United States Code (as added by subsection (b)), shall take 
     effect on the date that is three years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today on 
behalf of myself and my colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, is a very 
simple, straightforward amendment. It would simply require that all 
Defense Department physicians have unrestricted licenses in order to 
practice medicine. In addition, our amendment would require the 
Department of Defense to set up a monitoring system to ensure that 
military physicians obtain continuing medical education in his or her 
specialty. This amendment is about ensuring that the men and women of 
our armed forces, as well as their families, are guaranteed a physician 
corps that meets the same professional standards of civilian 
practitioners.
  A number of individuals deserve credit for this initiative. First, I 
commend my friend and colleague from Springfield, Ohio, Congressman 
Dave Hobson. Congressman Hobson is one of the true best friends of our 
military families, and he has been a true leader in Congress to ensure 
these families have available to them a high quality health care 
system. He is the lead sponsor of similar legislation in the House of 
Representatives, along with thirteen of his colleagues.
  Congressman Hobson is not the only one from the Dayton area that has 
shown an interest in health care quality for military families. Last 
October, a series of articles were written by the Dayton Daily News on 
the quality of military health care.
  One particular issue highlighted in this series involved the license 
requirements for doctors who practice medicine at military facilities. 
While civilian doctors hold a license in the state where they practice, 
military physicians can hold a license from one state and practice 
medicine in U.S. military facilities in all fifty states and around the 
world. This exemption is needed obviously because military doctors 
frequently are transferred to other facilities.
  That general requirement makes good sense. After all, it is 
impractical to have more than 13,000 military doctors applying and 
testing for a new license every time they move, which can average one 
move for every two to three years, and does not include the possibility 
of no notice deployments and yearly exercises. Two of the key 
requirements of military health care is mobility and flexibility, and 
both must remain to be the case.
  Generally, the system works well. Unfortunately, one state has been 
offering ``special'' licenses for doctors practicing at mental 
institutions, Indian reservations, and military facilities.
  The Dayton Daily News reported last year that 77 military doctors 
received ``special'' medical licenses, which were easier to obtain and 
has less rigorous testing requirements. In essence, the ``special'' 
license lowered the level of standardized competency.

[[Page S6681]]

  The amendment I introduced today will eliminate this loop hole. 
Specifically, it will require the Defense Department to have their 
physicians carry a current ``unrestricted'' license.
  To their credit, our armed forces, through the regulatory process, 
already are moving toward the very same goals of this legislation. Our 
amendment simply codifies in the law this basic requirement--to ensure 
that there is a minimum standard of professional competency.
  Just as important, under our amendment, the mobility and flexibility 
of military health care would be maintained by allowing the 
``unrestricted'' license to be issued by any state, but it will not be 
a ``specialized'' license that would be able to circumnavigate 
proficiency standards.
  Military personnel and their families deserve to have the peace of 
mind that no matter where they are stationed, or where they are 
treated, they will receive the same level of competent health care.
  This amendment, Mr. President, gives military personnel and their 
families this peace of mind.
  I am pleased that our amendment has the support of the National 
Military Families Association (NFMA) and the American Association of 
Physician Specialists (AAPS). I ask unanimous consent that the letters 
of support for this amendment from NFMA and AAPS be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     AAPS, American Association of


                                  Physician Specialists, Inc.,

                                        Atlanta, GA, May 14, 1998.
     Hon. Mike DeWine,
     U.S. Senate, 140 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator DeWine: On behalf of the American Association 
     of Physician Specialists (AAPS), I am writing to express our 
     support for your proposed amendment to the Defense 
     Authorization Bill, S. 2057, regarding providing military 
     health care. As a national organization representing 
     thousands of physicians in all specialties and types of 
     practices throughout the United States, AAPS is deeply 
     concerned with the issue of professional standards and 
     qualifications for physicians in practice areas. AAPS was 
     founded in 1952 to provide a clinically recognized mechanism 
     for specialty certification of physicians with advanced 
     training. As the administrative home for 12 approved Boards 
     of Certification, AAPS strives daily to ensure the 
     availability of verifiably trained, certified physicians to 
     provide quality health care to both military personnel, and 
     the civilian population.
       We thank you for your attention to this important issue, 
     and offer our support and services, should our expertise be 
     of any assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                               William J. Carbone,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                    NMFA, National


                                  Military Family Association,

                                     Alexandria, VA, May 13, 1998.
     Hon. Mike DeWine,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator DeWine: The National Military Family 
     Association (NMFA) strongly supports your proposed amendment 
     that would place into law the requirement that all military 
     physicians must possess an unrestricted license to practice 
     medicine. The discovery earlier this year, by members of the 
     media, that military physicians with restricted licenses were 
     providing medical care to service members, military retirees, 
     and their family members created significant concerns within 
     the military beneficiary community. The fact that the current 
     Surgeons General and the Acting Assistant Secretary of 
     Defense for Health Affairs was unaware of this situation was 
     most troubling.
       NMFA is aware that the Department of Defense has instituted 
     policies to require unrestricted licenses of their military 
     physicians, but feel it important that this initiative is 
     incorporated into law. Since present military health care 
     leaders were unaware of the restricted license situation, 
     NMFA fears that corporate memory could again become blurred 
     and a repeat of the problem could occur.
       NMFA very much appreciates your concern for military 
     families and your interest in assuring them of the quality of 
     the physicians within the military health care system.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James M. Mutter,
                                   Colonel, USMC (Ret), President.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this 
important quality of life initiative for our military personnel and 
their families.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge the Senate adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2758) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2759

  (Purpose: To clarify the eligibility of dependents of United States 
Customs Service employees to enroll in Department of Defense dependents 
                        schools in Puerto Rico)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Grassley, I offer 
an amendment that clarifies that children of U.S. Customs Service 
agents assigned in Puerto Rico can attend DOD dependent school without 
regard to any time limits, and that if the agent is killed in the line 
of duty, the dependents can remain enrolled in the DOD schools during 
the school year in which the agent was killed, and that DOD cannot 
charge the Customs Service tuition for these students.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 2759.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike out section 1055, and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:

     SEC. 1055. ELIGIBILITY FOR ATTENDANCE AT DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE DOMESTIC DEPENDENT ELEMENTARY AND 
                   SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

       (a) Military Dependents.--Subsection (a) of section 2164 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by designating the first sentence as paragraph (1);
       (2) by designating the second sentence as paragraph (2); 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end of paragraph (2), as so 
     designated, the following: ``The Secretary may also permit a 
     dependent of a member of the armed forces to enroll in such a 
     program if the dependent is residing in such a jurisdiction, 
     whether on or off a military installation, while the member 
     is assigned away from that jurisdiction on a remote or 
     unaccompanied assignment under permanent change of station 
     orders.''.
       (b) Employee Dependents.--Subsection (c)(2) of such section 
     is amended by striking out subparagraph (B) and inserting in 
     lieu thereof the following:
       ``(B) The Secretary may extend the enrollment of a 
     dependent referred to in subparagraph (A) in the program for 
     more than five consecutive school years if the Secretary 
     determines that the dependent is eligible under paragraph 
     (1), space is available in the program, and adequate 
     arrangements are made for reimbursement of the Secretary for 
     the costs to the Secretary of the educational services 
     provided for the dependent. An extension shall be for only 
     one school year, but the Secretary may authorize a successive 
     extension each year for the next school year upon making the 
     determinations required under the preceding sentence for that 
     next school year.''.
       (c) Customs Service Employee Dependents in Puerto Rico.--
     (1) Subsection (c) of such section is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(4)(A) A dependent of a United States Customs Service 
     employee who resides in Puerto Rico but not on a military 
     installation may enroll in an educational program provided by 
     the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) in Puerto Rico.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding the limitation on duration of 
     enrollment set forth in paragraph (2), a dependent described 
     in subparagraph (A) who is enrolled in an education program 
     described in that subparagraph may be removed from the 
     program only for good cause (as determined by the Secretary). 
     No requirement under that paragraph for reimbursement of the 
     Secretary for the costs of educational services provided for 
     the dependent shall apply with respect to the dependent.
       ``(C) In the event of the death in the line of duty of an 
     employee described in subparagraph (A), a dependent of the 
     employee may remain enrolled in an educational program 
     described in that subparagraph until--
       ``(i) the end of the academic year in which the death 
     occurs; or
       ``(ii) the dependent is removed for good cause (as so 
     determined).''.
       (2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect 
     on the date of enactment of this Act and apply to academic 
     years beginning on or after that date.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to draw attention to a 
problem in our drug control program. It concerns something that the 
Department of Defense (DoD) is not doing. And frankly it's 
embarrassing. Today, the men and women of federal law enforcement 
constantly put their lives at risk in an effort to fight the increasing 
flow of illicit drugs into our country. Not only do we face the threat 
of an increase of drugs in our children's

[[Page S6682]]

schools and on our streets, but our law enforcement officers continue 
to face a rising tide of violence at our borders and in our cities as a 
result of the drug trade. We continue to see the flow of narcotics 
across the Southern tier of the U.S. to include Puerto Rico. Law 
enforcement personnel and their commitment to the mission to fight the 
war on drugs work many long hours, sometimes late into the evening and 
are subject to changes in their schedules at a moments notice. The 
families of these officers also feel the pressures of the job they 
perform. This brings me to the point I would like to make.
  The front lines of the U.S. Customs Service are not just a problem of 
gun-toting drug thugs. They face more than long hours and risky 
situations. While they deal with all these things, they must shoulder 
the additional burden of coping with bureaucratic bumbledom. This added 
load is a result of DoD officiousness and unwillingness to cooperate. 
The language of instruction in Puerto Rico public schools is Spanish 
and not English. Therefore, the only affordable English-language school 
option for U.S. Customs' personnel is the DoD school. However, current 
legislation and DoD policy is creating a hardship for Customs' 
employees and their families. This unnecessarily affects our counter-
drug efforts by undermining morale.
  It is my understanding that the children of these law enforcement 
personnel have been attending DoD schools in Puerto Rico for more than 
20 years. Throughout the years, changes in legislation and DoD policy 
have placed numerous restrictions on Customs and other Federal civilian 
agencies. Customs has recently augmented its workforce in Puerto Rico 
under its Operation Gateway initiative in light of the continuing and 
heightened threat of narcotics smuggling and money laundering in the 
Caribbean Basin. I supported this initiative. This session I will also 
stress the need for better coordination of our interdiction strategy, 
particularly the need to develop a ``Southern Tier' concept. This 
initiative will strive to focus resources in a more comprehensive way 
to protect our southern frontier. Puerto Rico is crucial to this 
strategy. Current legislation and DoD's policy requirements are, 
however, obstacles to the effective implementation of this aggressive 
enforcement initiative in terms of recruitment and retention of Customs 
employers because as I stated earlier, there are no English speaking 
public schools in Puerto Rico.
  I think it is ridiculous that Customs' efforts in Puerto Rico--the 
men and women who deal daily with difficult and dangerous situations--
should find their attention distracted by something like this.
  The U.S. Customs Service interdicts more drugs than any other 
Government Agency. Based on the size of the workforce of Customs in 
Puerto Rico, their critical law enforcement mission, difficulty in 
recruiting, and the negative affect this policy is having on their 
employees and families (over 150 children of Customs employees are 
currently enrolled in the program), I would like to see a swift 
solution to these problems.

  Recently, a Customs Special Agent was killed in an accident while 
assisting the U.S. Secret Service on a Presidential detail that 
highlights another problem. My legislation will also address a concern 
raised by this case. It happens that the children of this agent 
currently attend classes in the DoD school. It is my understanding, 
that a special exception from the Secretary of Defense was necessary in 
order for these children to continue in the DoD school program for the 
remainder of the school year. DoD has dragged its feet. My amendment 
will deal with this and similar situations.
  My staff has tried to work out a deal, But DoD has not been very 
responsive. I personally wrote the Secretary of Defense to work out a 
solution. I got a response from a low-level bureaucrat who responded 
just like, well, a bureaucrat. It is my understanding that the only 
answer from DoD is, ``nothing can be done'', I am told that the only 
solution is to ``change the legislation''.
  This amendment is essential in order to address the current problems 
that I have described for these employees and their families and I look 
forward to working with you to ensure that our efforts to protect our 
country from illicit drugs is effective and adequately supported. I 
hope that my colleagues will look at this legislation and join me in 
supporting this. It is enough of a burden on the families of the 
dedicated men and women who labor to protect our borders without 
further weighing them down with senseless red tape.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge the Senate adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 2759) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2760

 (Purpose: Relating to the so-called ``1 plus 1 barracks initiative'')

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Roberts, I offer an 
amendment which requires the Secretary of Defense to report on the 
``One-Plus-One'' barracks standard and certify that it is necessary in 
order to assure retention of first-term enlisted personnel of the Armed 
Forces.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Roberts, proposes an amendment numbered 2760.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title XXVIII, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 28_. REPORT AND REQUIREMENT RELATING TO ``1 PLUS 1 
                   BARRACKS INITIATIVE''.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in 
     consultation with the Secretaries of the military 
     departments, submit to Congress a report on the costs and 
     benefits of implementing the initiative to build single 
     occupancy barracks rooms with a shared bath, the so-called 
     ``1 plus 1 barracks initiative''.
       (b) Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A justification for the initiative referred to in 
     subsection (a), including a description of the manner in 
     which the initiative is designed to assure the retention of 
     first-term enlisted members of the Armed Forces in adequate 
     numbers.
       (2) A description of the experiences of the military 
     departments with the retention of first-term enlisted members 
     of the Armed Forces, including--
       (A) a comparison of such experiences before implementation 
     of the initiative with such experiences after implementation 
     of the initiative; and
       (B) an analysis of the basis for any change in retention 
     rates of such members that has arisen since implementation of 
     the initiative.
       (3) Any information indicating that the lack of single 
     occupancy barracks rooms with a shared bath has been or is 
     the basis of the decision of first-term members of the Armed 
     Forces not to reenlist in the Armed Forces.
       (4) Any information indicating that the lack of such 
     barracks rooms has hampered recruitment for the Armed Forces 
     or that the construction of such barracks rooms would 
     substantially improve recruitment.
       (5) The cost for each Armed Force of implementing the 
     initiative, including the amount of funds obligated or 
     expended on the initiative before the date of enactment of 
     this Act and the amount of funds required to be expended 
     after that date to complete the initiative.
       (6) The views of each of the Chiefs of Staff of the Armed 
     Forces regarding the initiative and regarding any 
     alternatives to the initiative having the potential of 
     assuring the retention of first-term enlisted members of the 
     Armed Forces in adequate numbers.
       (7) A cost-benefit analysis of the initiative.
       (c) Limitation on FY 2000 Funding Request.--The Secretary 
     of Defense may not submit to Congress any request for funding 
     for the so-called ``1 plus 1 barracks initiative'' in fiscal 
     year 2000 unless the Secretary certifies to Congress that 
     further implementation of the initiative is necessary in 
     order to assure the retention of first-term enlisted members 
     of the Armed Forces in adequate numbers.

  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge the Senate adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 2760) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S6683]]

                           Amendment No. 2761

   (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that a higher priority 
  should be given drug interdiction and counterdrug activities of the 
     Department of Defense under the global Military Force Policy)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Graham, DeWine, and 
Grassley, I offer an amendment which expresses the sense of the 
Congress that the Department of Defense should raise its priority of 
counternarcotics so that it is at the same level as peacekeeping 
operations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Graham, for 
     himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2761.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle D of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 334. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PRIORITY OF DRUG 
                   INTERDICTION AND COUNTERDRUG ACTIVITIES.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense 
     should revise the Global Military Force Policy of the 
     Department of Defense--
       (1) to treat the international drug interdiction and 
     counter-drug activities of the department as a military 
     operation other than war, thereby elevating the priority 
     given such activities under the policy to the next priority 
     below the priority given to war under the policy and to the 
     same priority as is given to peacekeeping operations under 
     the department to drug interdiction and counter-drug 
     activities in accordance with the priority given those 
     activities.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe the amendment has been cleared by 
the other side.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, the amendment 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2761) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2762

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a barter 
 agreement during fiscal years 1999 through 2003 to exchange vehicles 
  for repair and remanufacture of ribbon bridges for the Marine Corps)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer 
an amendment which authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a 
barter agreement involving the exchange of excess trucks for ribbon 
bridges for the Marine Corps.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 2762.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. 812. FIVE-YEAR AUTHORITY FOR SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO 
                   EXCHANGE CERTAIN ITEMS.

       (a) Barter Authority.--The Secretary of the Navy may enter 
     into a barter agreement to exchange trucks and other tactical 
     vehicles for the repair and remanufacture of ribbon bridges 
     for the Marine Corps in accordance with section 201(c) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 
     U.S.C. 481(c)), except that the requirement for items 
     exchanged under that section to be similar items shall not 
     apply to the authority under this subsection.
       (b) Period of Authority.--The authority to enter into 
     agreements under subsection (a) and to make exchanges under 
     any such agreement is effective during the 5-year period 
     beginning on October 1, 1998, and ending at the end of 
     September 30, 2003.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this amendment to S. 2057, the Fiscal 
Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act, provides authority for the United 
States Marine Corps to enter into a barter agreement with a commercial 
entity for the purpose of allowing existing Marine Corps ribbon bridges 
to be remanufactured into an Improved Ribbon Bridge configuration.
  The Marine Corps has 250 bays [length] of ribbon bridge, of which 180 
require repair. The ribbon bridge is the Marine Corps' only floating 
bridge capability and is used to allow vehicles to cross streams and 
gullies. The ribbon bridge bays used by the Marine Corps are 
approximately 20 years old. Due to limited fiscal resources and higher 
priorities, it is unlikely that the ribbon bridge upgrade will 
successfully compete for funding.
  It is my understanding that a remanufacture of these existing bridges 
to the Improved Ribbon Bridge configuration will provide an additional 
15-20 years of service from these bridges. I am aware that the Marine 
Corps and Office of the Secretary of Defense supports this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared, Mr. President.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2762) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2763

(Purpose: To enhance the fiscal position of the Center for Hemispheric 
Defense Studies for meeting the increasing responsibilities designated 
              for the Center by the Secretary of Defense)

  Mr. LEVIN. On behalf of Senator Graham of Florida, I offer an 
amendment that would enhance the fiscal position of the Center for 
Hemispheric Defense Studies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] for Mr. Graham 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2763.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title IX, add the following:

     SEC. 908. CENTER FOR HEMISPHERIC DEFENSE STUDIES.

       (a) Funding for Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies.--
     (1) Chapter 108 of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2166. National Defense University: funding of 
       component institution

       ``Funds available for the payment of personnel expenses 
     under the Latin American cooperation authority set forth in 
     section 1050 of this title are also available for the costs 
     of the operation of the Center for Hemispheric Defense 
     Studies.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
``2166. National Defense University: funding of component 
              institution.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1050 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``Secretary of Defense 
     or the'' before ``Secretary of a military department''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared 
by the other side.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared by this 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I urge that the Senate adopt this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2763) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2764

   (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Energy to enter into cost-
sharing partnerships to operate the Hazardous Materials Management and 
      Emergency Response training facility, Richland, Washington.)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Gorton and Murray, 
I offer an amendment which would authorize the Secretary of Energy to 
enter into cost-sharing partnerships to operate the Hazardous Materials 
Management and Emergency Response training facility in Richland, WA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] for Mr. 
     Gorton, for himself and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2764.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle C of title XXXI, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3137. COST-SHARING FOR OPERATION OF THE HAZARDOUS 
                   MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE 
                   TRAINING FACILITY, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary of Energy may enter into 
     partnership arrangements with Federal and non-Federal 
     entities to

[[Page S6684]]

     share the costs of operating the Hazardous Materials 
     Management and Emergency Response training facility 
     authorized under section 3140 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 
     108 Stat. 3088). Such arrangements may include the exchange 
     of equipment and services.

  Mr. THURMOND. I believe the amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge that the Senate adopt this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2764) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2765

 (Purpose: To add home school diploma recipients to the pilot program 
  for treating GED recipients as high school graduates for enlistment 
                               purposes)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Coverdell, I offer 
an amendment that would add home schooling graduates to a pilot program 
in which they would be permitted to enlist in the military services as 
if they possessed a high school diploma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] for Mr. 
     Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 2765.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike out section 529, and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:

     SEC. 529. PILOT PROGRAM FOR TREATING GED AND HOME SCHOOL 
                   DIPLOMA RECIPIENTS AS HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES FOR 
                   DETERMINATIONS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR ENLISTING IN 
                   THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     establish a pilot program to assess whether the Armed Forces 
     could better meet recruiting requirements by treating GED 
     recipients and home school diploma recipients as having 
     graduated from high school with a high school diploma for the 
     purpose of determining the eligibility of those persons to 
     enlist in the Armed Forces. The Secretary of each military 
     department shall administer the pilot program for the armed 
     force or armed forces under the jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Eligible Recipients.--(1) Under the pilot program, a 
     person shall be treated as having graduated from high school 
     with a high school diploma for the purpose described in 
     subsection (a) if the person--
       (A) has completed a general education development program 
     while participating in the National Guard Challenge Program 
     and is a GED recipient; or
       (B) is a home school diploma recipient and provides a 
     transcript demonstrating completion of high school to the 
     military department involved under the pilot program.
       (2) For the purposes of this section, a person is a GED 
     recipient if the person, after completing a general education 
     development program, has obtained certification of high 
     school equivalency by meeting State requirements and passing 
     a State approved exam that is administered for the purpose of 
     providing an appraisal of the person's achievement or 
     performance in the broad subject matter areas usually 
     required for high school graduates.
       (3) For the purposes of this section, a person is a home 
     school diploma recipient if the person has received a diploma 
     for completing a program of education through the high school 
     level at a home school, without regard to whether the home 
     school is treated as a private school under the law of the 
     State in which located.
       (c) Annual Limit on Number.--Not more than 1,250 GED 
     recipients, and not more than 1,250 home school diploma 
     recipients, enlisted by an armed force in any fiscal year may 
     be treated under the pilot program as having graduated from 
     high school with a high school diploma.
       (d) Period for Pilot Program.--The pilot program shall be 
     in effect for five fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1998.
       (e) Report.--(1) Not later than February 1, 2004, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit a report on the pilot 
     program to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and 
     the Committee on National Security of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2)(A) The report shall include the assessment of the 
     Secretary of Defense, and any assessment of any of the 
     Secretaries of the military departments, regarding the value 
     of, and any necessity for, authority to treat GED recipients 
     and home school diploma recipients as having graduated from 
     high school with a high school diploma for the purpose of 
     determining the eligibility of those persons to enlist in the 
     Armed Forces.
       (B) The Secretary shall also set forth in the report, by 
     armed force for each fiscal year of the pilot program, a 
     comparison of the performance of the persons who enlisted in 
     that armed force during the fiscal year as GED or home school 
     diploma recipients treated under the pilot program as having 
     graduated from high school with a high school diploma with 
     the performance of the persons who enlisted in that armed 
     force during the same fiscal year after having graduated from 
     high school with a high school diploma, with respect to the 
     following:
       (i) Attrition.
       (ii) Discipline.
       (iii) Adaptability to military life.
       (iv) Aptitude for mastering the skills necessary for 
     technical specialties.
       (v) Reenlistment rates.
       (f) Reference to National Guard Challenge Program.--The 
     National Guard Challenge Program referred to in this section 
     is a program conducted under section 509 of title 32, United 
     States Code.
       (g) State Defined.--In this section, the term ``State'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 509(l)(1) of title 32, 
     United States Code.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
S. 2057, the Defense Authorization Bill. The Defense Authorization bill 
as currently written contains a section authorizing a pilot program 
promoting GED recipients to Tier I recruiting status for the Armed 
Forces. My amendment would simply add graduates of home schools to this 
pilot program.
  All service branches of the military have limited openings for 
recruits. As a result, military recruiters utilize a system in which 
they give preference to applicants who have at least graduated from 
high school. These are Tier I applicants. Currently, home schoolers 
have Tier II status, meaning only when a recruiter cannot find a Tier I 
applicant to fill an opening does a home schooler come up for 
consideration. This is true despite evidence indicating that the 
average home schooled student scores in at least the 80th percentile in 
all subjects on standardized tests while the typical public school 
student scores around the 50th percentile. This would indicate that 
home schoolers complete an educational program at least as rigorous as 
that of the average high school student. Why then should home schoolers 
not be placed in the same recruiting tier as their high school 
counterparts?
  While the Department of Defense has concerns that home schoolers have 
higher attrition rates than other Tier I candidates, there is not a 
significant enough body of evidence to support these claims. Certainly, 
retaining soldiers is a large concern for all services. However, due to 
their Tier II status, very few home schoolers have been recruited into 
the military over the past ten years. Accordingly, no valid statistical 
sample exists demonstrating home schoolers' attrition rates. It is the 
intent of my amendment to establish a valid statistical sample of 
attrition rates for home schoolers upon which the Armed Services can 
make a more educated assessment of its tier assignments.
  Mr. President, the Armed Forces in recent years have experienced 
recruiting problems. While they actively work to address these issues I 
believe Congress should also look at possible solutions. My amendment 
is an attempt to do just that. I offer today not only an opportunity 
for home schoolers, but an opportunity for the military to explore 
fully a new recruiting tool.
  Mr. THURMOND. I believe the amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge that the Senate adopt this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 2765) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2766

    (Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate regarding oil spill 
        prevention training for personnel on board Navy vessels)

  Mr. THURMOND. On behalf of Senator Gorton, I offer an amendment that 
would express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of the Navy 
should ensure that appropriate Navy personnel assigned to ships are 
trained in oil spill prevention measures.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.

[[Page S6685]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] for Mr. 
     Gorton, proposes an amendment numbered 2766.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 59, below line 20, add the following:

     SEC. 328. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING OIL SPILL PREVENTION 
                   TRAINING FOR PERSONNEL ON BOARD NAVY VESSELS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) There have been six significant oil spills in Puget 
     Sound, Washington, in 1998, five at Puget Sound Naval 
     Shipyard (including three from the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, one 
     from the U.S.S. Carl Vinson, and one from the U.S.S. 
     Sacramento) and one at Naval Station Everett from the U.S.S. 
     Paul F. Foster.
       (2) Navy personnel on board vessels, and not shipyard 
     employees, were primarily responsible for a majority of these 
     oil spills at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
       (3) Oil spills have the potential to damage the local 
     environment, killing microscopic organisms, contributing to 
     air pollution, harming plants and marine animals, and 
     increasing overall pollution levels in Puget Sound.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the Secretary of the Navy should take immediate action to 
     significantly reduce the risk of vessel oil spills, including 
     the minimization of fuel oil transfers, the assurance of 
     proper training and qualifications of all Naval personnel in 
     occupations that may contribute to or minimize the risk of 
     shipboard oil spills, and the improvement of liaison with 
     local authorities concerning oil spill prevention and 
     response activities.

  Mr. THURMOND. I believe the amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge that the Senate adopt this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2766) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2767

    (Purpose: To add $4,000,000 for research and development on the 
    expeditionary common automatic recovery and landing system and 
     $1,000,000 for research and development on the K-band testing 
obscuration pairing system, and to offset the increase by reducing the 
amount for Marine Corps procurement for communications and electronics 
                 infrastructure support by $5,000,000)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Reid, I offer an 
amendment which would add funds for research and development for the 
expeditionary common automatic recovery and landing system and the K-
band testing obscuration pairing system, offset by reducing the amount 
for Marine Corps procurement for communications and electronics 
infrastructure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] for Mr. Reid, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2767.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In section 201(2), strike out ``$8,199,102,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$8,204,102,000''.
       In section 102(b), strike out ``$915,558,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$910,558,000''.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this amendment allows for the inclusion of 
budget authority to continue work on the expeditionary common automatic 
recovery system (ECARS), which is a launch and recovery system that DoD 
is using for unmanned aerial vehicles. ECARS would be an adaptation of 
that system to provide a landing system for Marine Corps helicopters in 
places where the Marines have not had an opportunity to establish the 
full air control system.
  The K-band testing obscuration pairing system (K-TOPS) program would 
provide a training scoring system to allow the Marines to conduct 
realistic training in the presence of smoke or other obscurants on a 
simulated battlefield. Since these programs are for the Marine Corps, 
the source of budget authority for them is in the communications and 
infrastructure support program contained in the Procurement, Marine 
Corps (PMC) account.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe the amendment has been cleared by 
the other side.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I urge that the Senate adopt this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 2767) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2768

(Purpose: To expand certain land conveyance authority, Eglin Air Force 
                             Base, Florida)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Mack, I offer an 
amendment which would amend the Military Construction Act of 1979 to 
authorize an additional conveyance, at fair market value, of 4 acres at 
Eglin Air Force Base to the Air Force Enlisted Men's Widows and 
Dependents Home Foundation, Inc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] for Mr. 
     Mack, proposes an amendment numbered 2768.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 342, below line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 2827. EXPANSION OF LAND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY, EGLIN AIR 
                   FORCE BASE, FLORIDA.

       Section 809(c) of the Military Construction Authorization 
     Act, 1979 (Public Law 95-356; 92 Stat. 587), as amended by 
     section 2826 of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 
     1989 (division B of Public Law 100-456; 102 Stat. 2123), is 
     further amended by striking out ``and a third parcel 
     containing forty-two acres'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``, a third parcel containing forty-two acres, a fourth 
     parcel containing approximately 3.43 acres, and a fifth 
     parcel containing approximately 0.56 acres''.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge that the Senate adopt this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 2768) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2769

   (Purpose: To authorize the conveyance of certain water rights and 
  related rights at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado, for purposes of 
            acquiring certain perpetual contracts for water)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Allard and 
Campbell, I offer an amendment that would replace an erratic water 
supply at Rocky Mountain Arsenal with a constant water supply, satisfy 
the Army's obligation to provide water to a community impacted by RMA 
contamination, provide for a permanent water supply for the Refuge, 
reduce operating costs associated with water access, and provide for 
needed water storage facilities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] for Mr. 
     Allard, for himself and Mr. Campbell, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2769.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 342, below line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 2827. CONVEYANCE OF WATER RIGHTS AND RELATED INTERESTS, 
                   ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL, COLORADO, FOR PURPOSES 
                   OF ACQUISITION OF PERPETUAL CONTRACTS FOR 
                   WATER.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--Subject to subsection (c), the 
     Secretary of the Army may convey any and all interest of the 
     United States in the water rights and related rights at Rocky 
     Mountain Arsenal, Colorado, described in subsection (b) to 
     the City and County of Denver, Colorado, acting through its 
     Board of Water Commissioners.
       (b) Covered Water Rights and Related Rights.--The water 
     rights and related rights authorized to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) Any and all interest in 300 acre rights to water from 
     Antero Reservoir as set forth in Antero Reservoir Contract 
     No. 382 dated August 22, 1923, for 160 acre rights; Antero 
     Reservoir Contract No. 383 dated August 22, 1923, for 50 acre 
     rights; Antero Reservoir Contract No. 384 dated October 30, 
     1923, for 40 acre

[[Page S6686]]

     rights; Antero Reservoir Contract No. 387 dated March 3, 
     1923, for 50 acre rights; and Supplemental Contract No. 382-
     383-384-387 dated July 24, 1932, defining the amount of water 
     to be delivered under the 300 acre rights in the prior 
     contracts as 220 acre feet.
       (2) Any and all interest in the 305 acre rights of water 
     from the High Line Canal, diverted at its headgate on the 
     South Platte River and delivered to the Fitzsimons Army 
     Medical Center and currently subject to cost assessments 
     pursuant to Denver Water Department contract #001990.
       (3) Any and all interest in the 2,603.55 acre rights of 
     water from the High Line Canal, diverted at its headgate on 
     the South Platte River and delivered to the Rocky Mountain 
     Arsenal in Adams County, Colorado, and currently subject to 
     cost assessments by the Denver Water Department, including 
     680 acre rights transferred from Lowry Field to the Rocky 
     Mountain Arsenal by the October 5, 1943, agreement between 
     the City and County of Denver, acting by and through its 
     Board of Water Commissioners, and the United States of 
     America.
       (4) Any and all interest in 4,058.34 acre rights of water 
     not currently subject to cost assessments by the Denver Water 
     Department.
       (5) A new easement for the placement of water lines 
     approximately 50 feet wide inside the Southern boundary of 
     Rocky Mountain Arsenal and across the Reserve Center along 
     the northern side of 56th Avenue.
       (6) A permanent easement for utilities where Denver has an 
     existing temporary easement near the southern and western 
     boundaries of Rocky Mountain Arsenal.
       (c) Consideration.--(1) The Secretary of the Army may make 
     the conveyance under subsection (a) only if the Board of 
     Water Commissioners, on behalf of the City and County of 
     Denver, Colorado--
       (A) enters into a permanent contract with the Secretary of 
     the Army for purposes of ensuring the delivery of nonpotable 
     water and potable water to Rocky Mountain Arsenal; and
       (B) enters into a permanent contract with the Secretary of 
     the Interior for purposes of ensuring the delivery of 
     nonpotable water and potable water to Rocky Mountain Arsenal 
     National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado.
       (2) Section 2809(e) of title 10, United States Code, shall 
     not operate to limit the term of the contract entered into 
     under paragraph (1)(A).
       (d) Requirement Relating to Conveyance.--The Secretary of 
     the Army may not make the conveyance authorized by subsection 
     (a) until the execution of the proposed agreement provided 
     for under subsection (c) between the City and County of 
     Denver, Colorado, acting through its Board of Water 
     Commissioners, the South Adams County Water and Sanitation 
     District, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and 
     the Army.
       (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of the 
     Army may require such additional terms and conditions in 
     connection with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of 
     the United States.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today Senator Campbell and I are offering 
a technical amendment to the 1999 Defense Authorization Bill which 
would authorize the transfer of water interests held by the Army at the 
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, including rights in Highland Canal and Antero 
Reservoir. Before I give the details of the amendment, I want to thank 
Chairman Thurmond and Senator Levin for accepting this amendment and 
for all the hard work by the Armed Service staff, who without their 
active engagement in this process, this important amendment would never 
have been possible.
  As the clean-up at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal has progressed, quite 
well I might add, there has always been a great need for water. 
However, as with much of the West, water is a commodity and a way to 
provide water has been an area of discussion between all the parties 
since the clean-up began. Unfortunately, the United States' acre rights 
to water in the High Line Canal have proved inadequate to supply the 
Army's needs for non-potable water at the Arsenal.
  In a June 11, 1996 Record of Decision, the Army, Shell, and South 
Adams County Water and Sanitation District (SACWSD) entered into a 
Memorandum of Understanding by which the Army and Shell agreed to 
acquire and deliver 4000 acre-feet of water to SACWSD.
  However, after a lengthy investigation, it was determined that the 
only realistic source of potable water for SACWSD was by arranging a 
permanent contract with the Denver Water Board. Also, it was determined 
that the only way to be certain that the Refuge received a long term 
supply of 1200 acre-feet of non-potable water was to obtain the same 
from the Denver Water Board's non-potable reuse facility pursuant to a 
perpetual contract.
  During these discussions, the Denver Water Board desired to acquire 
all of the Army's interest in the irrigation canal and reservoir 
company in order to reduce the cost of operating those facilities and 
consolidate its ownership to the rights of the rights to receive water 
from those facilities. On December 19, 1997, the Army, the Fish & 
Wildlife Service, SACWSD, and the Denver Water Board entered into a 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The purpose of the MOU was to 
accomplish the goals of each of the parties as follows:
  a. Denver will provide SACWSD with 4000 acre-feet of potable water in 
fulfillment of the Army's responsibility under the June 11, 1996 MOU.
  b. SACWSD will provide Denver with certain storage facilities and 
cash to compensate Denver for the potable water supply.
  c. Denver will provide the Army and the Fish & Wildlife Service with 
short and long term water supplies. The short term supplies will be 
2800 acre-feet, and the permanent supply will be 1200 acre-feet of non-
potable reuse water per year as a guaranteed supply. In addition, 
Denver will supply 50 acre-feet of annual potable water supply.
  d. The Army will transfer to Denver its interests in the canal and 
reservoir companies which currently serve as the source of the Arsenal 
water supply.
  The result of these understandings fulfills the federal government's 
responsibility under the Record of Decision to insure a permanent and a 
firm supply of water for the ultimate needs of the Refuge and the 
federal government's responsibility to provide a potable supply of 
SACWSD.
  Because of the nature of the legal status of the Army's interest in 
the canal and reservoir companies and the nature of the interests to be 
received by the federal government from Denver as a permanent supply, 
there was uncertainty whether federal legislation would be required. It 
was determined federal legislation is required to avoid the problems 
associated with the disposal of government property, pursuant to the 
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act.
  However, the property being disposed of is not excess property and, 
therefore, not readily disposed of under normal procedures. The water 
supply being received in exchange is a perpetual contract supply and 
not a real property interest, precluding a like kind exchange. This 
exchange is for utility contracts or lease agreements that will replace 
acre rights to water as the mechanisms for the delivery of nonpotable 
water to the Arsenal and Fitzsimons. My understanding is that this has 
been confirmed by GSA, which is the main decisionmaker on excess 
property.
  All of the federal agencies and involved divisions of local and State 
governments are supportive of federal legislation and the agreements 
that it will implement, including Fitzsimons. It must be underscored 
that this amendment recognizes that the legal status of these rights 
are not being changed, nor are the rights being disposed of, rather the 
rights are being exchanged for permanent water contracts from Denver. 
There will be no change in the amount of flow through the South Platte 
and that Colorado water law will fully apply to this situation.
  While this amendment may seem technical and minor on the surface, 
this transfer of water interests is an important part of the overall 
solution in the clean-up of the Arsenal.
  Again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for accepting this 
important amendment and I thank their staff in working with my staff to 
make this happen.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I believe the amendment has been cleared 
by the other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge that the Senate adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 2769) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S6687]]

                           Amendment No. 2770

   (Purpose: To make available $2,500,000 for the activities of the 
                  Hanford Health Information Network)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murray, I offer an 
amendment which would make available $2.5 million from funds at the 
Department of Energy's Hanford site for the Hanford Health Information 
Network.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] for Mrs. Murray, for 
     herself, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Wyden and Mr. Smith of Oregon, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2770.

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

       On page 397, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 3137. HANFORD HEALTH INFORMATION NETWORK.

       Of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise 
     made available to the Department of Energy by section 3102, 
     $2,500,000 shall be available for activities relating to the 
     Hanford Health Information Network established pursuant to 
     the authority in section 3138 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 
     104 Stat. 1834), as amended by section 3138(b) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
     (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 3087).

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe the amendment has been cleared by 
the other side.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I urge that the Senate adopt this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2770) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2771

(Purpose: To extend the authority of the Secretary of Energy to appoint 
       certain scientific, engineering, and technical personnel)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator 
Bingaman, I offer an amendment which would extend the Secretary of 
Energy's authority to appoint certain scientific and technical 
personnel to critical health and safety posts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] for himself 
     and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2771.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 398, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 3144. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENT OF CERTAIN 
                   SCIENTIFIC, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNICAL 
                   PERSONNEL.

       Section 3161(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (42 U.S.C. 7231 note) is amended by 
     striking out ``September 30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``September 30, 2000''.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I believe the amendment has been cleared 
by the other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge that the Senate adopt the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2771) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2772

 (Purpose: To extend the authority of the Department of Energy to pay 
   voluntary separation incentive payments through December 31, 2000)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator 
Bingaman, I offer an amendment which would extend the Secretary of 
Energy's authority to make voluntary separation incentive payments to 
its Federal employees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] for himself 
     and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2772.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 398, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 3144. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TO 
                   PAY VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

       (a) Extension.--Notwithstanding subsection (c)(2)(D) of 
     section 663 of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208; 110 
     Stat. 3009-383; 5 U.S.C. 5597 note), the Department of Energy 
     may pay voluntary separation incentive payments to qualifying 
     employees who voluntarily separate (whether by retirement or 
     resignation) before January 1, 2001.
       (b) Exercise of Authority.--The Department shall pay 
     voluntary separation incentive payments under subsection (a) 
     in accordance with the provisions of such section 663.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge that the Senate adopt the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2772) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2773

(Purpose: To extend and reauthorize the Defense Production Act of 1950)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Grams and D'Amato, 
I offer an amendment which would reauthorize the Defense Production Act 
of 1950 for a period of 1 year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] for Mr. 
     Grams, for himself and Mr. D'Amato, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2773.

  The amendment is as follows:

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION AND REAUTHORIZATION OF DEFENSE 
                   PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950.

       (a) Extension of Termination Date.--Section 717(a) of the 
     Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2166(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``September 30, 1998'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 1999''.
       (b) Extension of Authorization.--Section 711(b) of the 
     Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2161(b)) is 
     amended by striking ``and 1998'' and inserting ``1998, and 
     1999''.

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this amendment will extend the 
authorization of the authorities under the Defense Production Act for 
one year through September 30, 1999.
  This matter is under the jurisdiction of the Senate Banking 
Committee, on which I serve as the Subcommittee on International 
Finance Chairman which handles this issue. Chairman D'Amato and Ranking 
Member Sarbanes of the Banking Committee, as well as Ranking Member of 
the International Finance Subcommittee, Senator Moseley-Braun, all have 
agreed to support this one-year extension as an amendment to the 
Defense Authorization bill to facilitate this matter in a year when 
floor time is becoming scarce.
  The Defense Production Act (DPA) is the primary authority for 
executive branch activities to ensure the timely availability of 
resources for national defense and civil emergency preparedness and 
response. It was first enacted in 1950 to mobilize the nation's 
productive capacity during the Korean War and ensures the availability 
of critical materials needed both for national defense and for 
catastrophic civil disasters. It allows criminal sanctions to prevent 
hoarding of critical materials. The DPA also authorizes the President 
to use financial incentives to encourage contractors to establish or 
expand industrial capacity for defense needs.
  The ``Exon-Florio'' language which authorizes the President to 
prohibit foreign investment if such investment threatens national 
security is also included in this Act.
  While DPA's primary function is to ensure resources are available in 
times of war, the DPA, as administered through the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) also provides

[[Page S6688]]

assistance during natural disasters. For instance, FEMA used the DPA to 
procure resources needed during the 1997 flood disaster in my own State 
of Minnesota.
  The Administration had requested some minor changes in the DPA. 
However, because committee and floor time is scarce this year, they 
agreed to a one-year extension. It is the goal of the Banking Committee 
to consider these changes, and a longer term reauthorization, next 
year.
  Mr. President, I thank the floor leaders for agreeing to facilitate 
this amendment as part of the DOD bill.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been 
cleared by the other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge that the Senate adopt this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2773) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2774

 (Purpose: To establish certain budgeting and other policies regarding 
          United States operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I offer an Armed Services Committee 
amendment that would express the sense of Congress that future year 
funding for operations in Bosnia be included above the topline in the 
defense budget and that U.S. forces in Bosnia should not act as civil 
police. In addition, our amendment would require the President to 
submit a report to Congress on the status of the establishment of the 
Multinational Support Unit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2774.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1064. BUDGETING FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION OF UNITED 
                   STATES FORCES IN NATO OPERATIONS IN BOSNIA AND 
                   HERZEGOVINA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Funding levels in the Department of Defense budget have 
     not been sufficient to pay for the deployment of United 
     States ground combat forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina that 
     began in fiscal year 1996.
       (2) The Department of Defense has used funds from the 
     operation and maintenance accounts of the Armed Forces to pay 
     for the operations because the funding levels included in the 
     defense budgets for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 have not been 
     adequate to maintain operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       (3) Funds necessary to continue United States participation 
     in the NATO operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to 
     replace operation and maintenance funds used for the 
     operations, have been requested by the President as 
     supplemental appropriations in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. 
     The Department of Defense has also proposed to reprogram 
     previously appropriated funds to make up the shortfall for 
     continued United States operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       (4) In February 1998, the President certified to Congress 
     that the continued presence of United States forces in Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina after June 30, 1998, was necessary in order 
     to meet national security interests of the United States.
       (5) The discretionary spending limit established for the 
     defense category for fiscal year 1998 in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 does not take into 
     account the continued deployment of United States forces in 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina after June 30, 1998. Therefore, the 
     President requested emergency supplemental appropriations for 
     the Bosnia and Herzegovina mission through September 30, 
     1998.
       (6) Amounts for operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina were 
     not included in the original budget proposed by the President 
     for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999.
       (7) The President requested $1,858,600,000 in emergency 
     appropriations in his March 4, 1998 amendment to the fiscal 
     year 1999 budget to cover the shortfall in funding in the 
     fiscal year 1999 for the costs of extending the mission in 
     Bosnia.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the President should include in the budget for the 
     Department of Defense that the President submits to Congress 
     under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for 
     each fiscal year sufficient amounts to pay for any proposed 
     continuation of the participation of United States forces in 
     NATO operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina for that fiscal 
     year; and
       (2) amounts included in the budget for that purpose should 
     not be transferred from amounts that would otherwise be 
     proposed in the budget of any of the Armed Forces in 
     accordance with the future-years defense program related to 
     that budget, or any other agency of the Executive Branch, 
     but, instead, should be an overall increase in the budget for 
     the Department of Defense.

     SEC. 1065. NATO PARTICIPATION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC 
                   SECURITY FUNCTIONS OF CIVILIAN AUTHORITIES IN 
                   BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has 
     approved the creation of a multi-national specialized unit of 
     gendarmes- or para-military police composed of European 
     security forces to help promote public security in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina as a part of the post-June 1998 mission for the 
     Stabilization Force (SFOR) authorized under the United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 1088 (December 12, 1996).
       (2) On at least four occasions, beginning in July 1997, the 
     Stabilization Force (SFOR) has been involved, pursuant to 
     military annex 1(A) of the Dayton Agreement, in carrying out 
     missions for the specific purpose of detaining war criminals, 
     and on at least one of those occasions United States forces 
     were directly involved in carrying out the mission.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     United States forces should not serve as civil police in 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       (c) Requirement for Report.--The President shall submit to 
     Congress, not later than October 1, 1998, a report on the 
     status of the NATO force of gendarmes or paramilitary police 
     referred to in subsection (a)(1), including the mission of 
     the force, the composition of the force, and the extent, if 
     any, to which members of the Armed Forces of the United 
     States are participating (or are to participate) in the 
     force.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, my amendment would address three items, 
funds in the future years defense program for operations in Bosnia, 
concern about the use of U.S. forces in a law enforcement capacity, and 
the status of establishing the NATO multinational security force.
  Funding for military forces participating in the NATO operation in 
Bosnia is the responsibility of the contributing nation. It is 
estimated that the U.S. costs of participating in the NATO operation 
will be close to $10 billion by the end of fiscal year 1999.
  The Administration has failed to provide adequate funds in the 
defense budget to fund U.S. participation in the NATO operation since 
November 1995, consequently reprogramming and rescissions of defense 
funds, as well as supplemental appropriations have been used to pay for 
those costs.
  In March, pursuant to legislation in the fiscal year 1998 defense 
authorization and appropriations bills, the President notified the 
Congress of his intention to extend the deployment of U.S. forces in 
Bosnia beyond June 30, 1998, and certified that it was in the national 
security interests for U.S. forces to remain in Bosnia so that 
conditions could be established to allow the implementation of the 
Dayton Accords without the support of a major NATO-led military force.
  The President's announcement to extend the deployment of U.S. forces 
in Bosnia after June 30, 1998 once again resulted in a funding 
shortfall for operations in Bosnia for fiscal year 1998, as well as for 
fiscal year 1999. To take care of the shortfalls in fiscal year 1998, 
the Congress provided an emergency appropriation.
  Once again, because they were unaware that the President would extend 
the participation of U.S. forces in the NATO operation in Bosnia, the 
Department of Defense and the military services did not include funds 
in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for defense. Thereby 
creating once again, a funding shortfall for operations in Bosnia in 
fiscal year 1999. To cover those costs anticipated in fiscal year 1999, 
but not provided for in the defense budget, the Committee has 
recommended an emergency authorization of $1.9 billion for operations 
in Bosnia in fiscal year 1999.
  Mr. President, U.S. forces will be in Bosnia for at least another 
year or two, if not longer, unless the Congress mandates their 
withdrawal. It is time for the President to include the funds necessary 
to pay for the operations in Bosnia in the fiscal year 2000 and future 
year budgets for defense above the top line in the balanced budget 
agreement. If the defense budget is not increased

[[Page S6689]]

to pay for the costs associated with this operation in Bosnia, the 
Congress will once again be faced with reprogramming defense funds, or 
providing emergency appropriations.
  If the Congress has to reprogram defense funds, or rescind defense 
programs, the military services will most likely have to transfer 
procurement and research and development dollars meant for 
modernization and replacement of equipment before it becomes obsolete 
and unsupportable.
  Transferring funds from the military service budgets for operations 
in Bosnia will result in reducing training opportunities, delaying real 
property maintenance, deferring depot maintenance, or reducing base 
operations and quality of life. We need to protect the readiness of our 
forces. Failure of the Administration to increase funding in future 
defense budgets to pay for operations in Bosnia would cause disruptions 
and in funding inefficiencies in our acquisition programs.
  My amendment would express the sense of Congress that the President 
should include funds for operations in Bosnia in the future years 
defense funds, and that those funds should not come from amounts that 
would otherwise be proposed for defense or the military services in 
accordance with the future years defense plan, but should be provided 
above the top line in the balanced budget agreement.
  My amendment would also express the concerns of Congress, as it did 
similarly in the fiscal year 1998 defense authorization and 
appropriation bills, that U.S. forces should not participate in law 
enforcement activities as civil police.
  The International Police Task Force was formed by the United Nations 
in response to a requirement in the Dayton Accords. In addition to 
training and advising local law enforcement authorities and personnel, 
the responsibility of this international police task force is to 
monitor, observe and facilitate law enforcement activities. The 
international police force also has no authority to arrest or detain 
people, to include indicted war criminals. Because the international 
police force is not armed, on many occasions NATO military forces have 
accompanied members of the IPTF to provide protection in the event 
there is a breakdown in law and order. NATO forces have not intervened 
during incidents of violence involving unarmed civilians. However, NATO 
troops have taken action against paramilitary or ``special police'' 
units, such as the kind that guard indicted war criminals like Mr. 
Karadicz.
  Earlier this year, the Congress was informed by the Secretary of 
Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that NATO would 
be establishing an 800-man paramilitary police force to respond to 
civil disturbances, such as the ones I just mentioned.
  Lastly, with regard with NATO's establishment of a Multinational 
Specialized Unit to respond to civil disturbances, my amendment would 
require the President to report on the status of NATO establishing the 
MSU, the mission of the MSU, its composition, and the extent to which 
U.S. military forces will participate in the MSU, if any role.
  Mr. President, I believe the amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge that the Senate adopt this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2774) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2775

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a 
report on the objectives of a contingency operation when the President 
    submits to Congress the first request for funding the operation)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Snowe and Cleland, 
I offer an amendment which has been approved by the Armed Services 
Committee and that would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
Congress a report on the objectives of any contingency operation 
involving the deployment of 500 or more U.S. military forces when the 
President requests funds for those operations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Ms. 
     Snowe, for herself and Mr. Cleland, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2775.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1031. SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON OBJECTIVES OF A 
                   CONTINGENCY OPERATION WITH FIRST REQUEST FOR 
                   FUNDING THE OPERATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On May 3, 1994, the President issued Presidential 
     Decision Directive 25 declaring that American participation 
     in United Nations and other peace operations would depend in 
     part on whether the role of United States forces is tied to 
     clear objectives and an endpoint for United States 
     participation can be identified.
       (2) Between that date and mid-1998, the President and other 
     executive branch officials have obligated or requested 
     appropriations of approximately $9,400,000,000 for military-
     related operations throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina without 
     providing to Congress, in conjunction with the budget 
     submission for any fiscal year, a strategic plan for such 
     operations under the criteria set forth in that Presidential 
     Decision Directive.
       (3) Between November 27, 1995, and mid-1998 the President 
     has established three deadlines, since elapsed, for the 
     termination of United States military-related operations 
     throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       (4) On December 17, 1997, the President announced that 
     United States ground combat forces would remain in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina for an unknown period of time.
       (5) Approximately 47,880 United States military personnel 
     (excluding personnel serving in units assigned to the 
     Republic of Korea) have participated in 14 international 
     contingency operations between fiscal years 1991 and 1998.
       (6) The 1998 posture statements of the Navy and Air Force 
     included declarations that the pace of military operations 
     over fiscal year 1997 adversely affected the readiness of 
     non-deployed forces, personnel retention rates, and spare 
     parts inventories of the Navy and Air Force.
       (b) Information To Be Reported With Funding Request.--
     Section 113 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Information To Accompany Initial Funding Request for 
     Contingency Operation.--Whenever the President submits to 
     Congress a request for appropriations for costs associated 
     with a contingency operation that involves, or likely will 
     involve, the deployment of more than 500 members of the armed 
     forces, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the objectives of the operation. The report shall 
     include a discussion of the following:
       ``(1) What clear and distinct objectives guide the 
     activities of United States forces in the operation.
       ``(2) What the President has identified on the basis of 
     those objectives as the date, or the set of conditions, that 
     defines the endpoint of the operation.''.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been 
cleared on the other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge that the amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2775) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2776

(Purpose: Pilot program for revitalizing the laboratories and test and 
            evaluation centers of the Department of Defense)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Robb and Santorum, I 
offer an amendment which would provide authority to conduct a pilot 
program for revitalizing the laboratories and test and evaluation 
centers of the Department of Defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Robb, for 
     himself and Mr. Santorum, proposes amendment No. 2776.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1064. PILOT PROGRAM FOR REVITALIZING THE LABORATORIES 
                   AND TEST AND EVALUATION CENTERS OF THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

[[Page S6690]]

       (1) Officials of the Department of Defense are critically 
     dependent on the science and technology laboratories and test 
     and evaluation centers, of the department--
       (A) to exploit commercial technology for unique military 
     purposes;
       (B) to develop advanced technology in precise areas;
       (C) to provide the officials with objective advice and 
     counsel on science and technology matters; and
       (D) to lead the decisionmaking that identifies the most 
     cost-effective procurements of military equipment and 
     services.
       (2) The laboratories and test and evaluation centers are 
     facing a number of challenges that, if not overcome, could 
     limit the productivity and self-sustainability of the 
     laboratories and centers, including--
       (A) the declining funding provided for science and 
     technology in the technology base program of the Department 
     of Defense;
       (B) difficulties experienced in recruiting, retaining, and 
     motivating high-quality personnel; and
       (C) the complex web of policies and regulatory constraints 
     that restrict authority of managers to operate the 
     laboratories and centers in a businesslike fashion.
       (3) Congress has provided tools to deal with the changing 
     nature of technological development in the defense sector by 
     encouraging closer cooperation with industry and university 
     research and by authorizing demonstrations of alternative 
     personnel systems.
       (4) A number of laboratories and test and evaluation 
     centers have addressed the challenges and are employing a 
     variety of innovative methods, such as the so-called 
     ``Federated Lab Concept'' undertaken at the Army Research 
     Laboratory, to maintain the high quality of the technical 
     program, to provide a challenging work environment for 
     researchers, and to meet the high cost demands of maintaining 
     facilities that are equal or superior in quality to 
     comparable facilities anywhere in the world.
       (b) Commendation.--Congress commends the Secretary of 
     Defense for the progress made by the science and technology 
     laboratories and test and evaluation centers to achieve the 
     results described in subsection (a)(4) and encourages the 
     Secretary to take the actions necessary to ensure continued 
     progress for the laboratories and test and evaluation centers 
     in developing cooperative relationships with universities and 
     other private sector entities for the performance of research 
     and development functions.
       (c) Pilot Program.--(1) In conjunction with the plan for 
     restructuring and revitalizing the science and technology 
     laboratories and test and evaluation centers of the 
     Department of Defense that is required by section 906 of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Defense may carry out a pilot program 
     to demonstrate improved cooperative relationships with 
     universities and other private sector entities for the 
     performance of research and development functions.
       (2) Under the pilot program, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     provide the director of one science and technology 
     laboratory, and the director of one test and evaluation 
     center, of each military department with authority for the 
     following:
       (A) To explore innovative methods for quickly, efficiently, 
     and fairly entering into cooperative relationships with 
     universities and other private sector entities with respect 
     to the performance of research and development functions.
       (B) To waive any restrictions on the demonstration and 
     implementation of such methods that are not required by law.
       (C) To develop or expand innovative methods of operation 
     that provide more defense research for each dollar of cost, 
     including to carry out such initiatives as focusing on the 
     performance of core functions and adopting more business-like 
     practices.
       (3) In selecting the laboratories and centers for 
     participation in the pilot program, the Secretary shall 
     consider laboratories and centers where innovative management 
     techniques have been demonstrated, particularly as documented 
     under sections 1115 through 1119 of title 31, United States 
     Code, relating to Government agency performance and results.
       (4) The Secretary may carry out the pilot program at each 
     selected laboratory and center for a period of three years 
     beginning not later than March 1, 1999.
       (d) Reports.--(1) Not later than March 1, 1999, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit a report on the 
     implementation of the pilot program to Congress. The report 
     shall include the following:
       (A) Each laboratory and center selected for the pilot 
     program.
       (B) To the extent possible, a description of the innovative 
     concepts that are to be tested at each laboratory or center.
       (C) The criteria to be used for measuring the success of 
     each concept to be tested.
       (2) Promptly after the expiration of the period for 
     participation of a laboratory or center in the pilot program, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a final 
     report on the participation of the laboratory or center in 
     the pilot program. The report shall contain the following:
       (A) A description of the concepts tested.
       (B) The results of the testing.
       (C) The lessons learned.
       (D) Any proposal for legislation that the Secretary 
     recommends on the basis of the experience at the laboratory 
     or center under the pilot program.

  Mr. LEVIN. I believe the amendment has been cleared on the other 
side.
  Mr. THURMOND. The amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2776) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2777

     (Purpose: To protect the voting rights of military personnel)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Gramm and McCain, 
I offer an amendment which will protect the voting rights of the 
military personnel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Gramm for himself and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2777.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 130, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 644. VOTING RIGHTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL.

       (a) Guarantee of Residency.--Article VII of the Soldiers' 
     and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (50 U.S.C. App. 590 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Sec. 704. (a) For purposes of voting for an office of the 
     United States or of a State, a person who is absent from a 
     State in compliance with military or naval orders shall not, 
     solely by reason of that absence--
       ``(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in 
     that State;
       ``(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or domicile in 
     any other State; or
       ``(3) be deemed to have become resident in or a resident of 
     any other State.
       ``(b) In this section, the term `State' includes a 
     territory or possession of the United States, a political 
     subdivision of a State, territory, or possession, and the 
     District of Columbia.''.
       (b) State Responsibility To Guarantee Military Voting 
     Rights.--(1) Section 102 of the Uniformed and Overseas 
     Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1) is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(a) Elections for Federal Offices.--'' 
     before ``Each State shall--''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Elections for State and Local Offices.--Each State 
     shall--
       ``(1) permit absent uniformed services voters to use 
     absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee 
     ballot in general, special, primary, and runoff elections for 
     State and local offices; and
       ``(2) accept and process, with respect to any election 
     described in paragraph (1), any otherwise valid voter 
     registration application from an absent uniformed services 
     voter if the application is received by the appropriate State 
     election official not less than 30 days before the 
     election.''.
       (2) The heading of title I of such Act is amended by 
     striking out ``FOR FEDERAL OFFICE''.

  Mr. THURMOND. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2777) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay it on the table.


                           Amendment No. 2778

(Purpose: To require a review and report on research on pharmacological 
 interventions for reversing brain injury resulting from head injuries 
          incurred in combat or exposures to chemical weapons)

  Mr. THURMOND. On behalf of Senator Warner, I offer an amendment which 
would require the Secretary of Defense to review and report to Congress 
on research concerning pharmacological interventions for reversing 
brain injury.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 2778.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 232. REVIEW OF PHARMACOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS FOR 
                   REVERSING BRAIN INJURY.

       (a) Review and Report Required.--The Assistant Secretary of 
     Defense for Health Affairs shall review research on 
     pharmacological interventions for reversing brain

[[Page S6691]]

     injury and, not later than March 31, 1999, submit a report on 
     the results of the review to Congress.
       (b) Content of Report.--The report shall include the 
     following:
       (1) The potential for pharmacological interventions for 
     reversing brain injury to reduce mortality and morbidity in 
     cases of head injuries incurred in combat or resulting from 
     exposures to chemical weapons or agents.
       (2) The potential utility of such interventions for the 
     Armed Forces.
       (3) A conclusion regarding whether funding for research on 
     such interventions should be included in the budget for the 
     Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000.

  Mr. THURMOND. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2778) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2779

(Purpose: To modify the authority relating to the demonstration project 
 to provide the FEHBP health care option to medicare-eligible military 
                       health care beneficiaries)

  Mr. THURMOND. On behalf of Senators Bond, Shelby, Coverdell, and 
Faircloth, I offer an amendment that would amend section 707 to 
accelerate the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) 
demonstration and increase the number of sites from two to four.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr. 
     Bond, for himself, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. 
     Faircloth, proposes an amendment numbered 2779.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 157, strike out line 7 and insert the following:
       (h) Additional Requirements Relating to FEHBP Demonstration 
     Project.--(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), the 
     Secretary shall commence the demonstration project under 
     subsection (d) on July 1, 1999.
       (2) Notwithstanding subsection (c), the Secretary shall 
     carry out the demonstration project under subsection (d) in 
     four separate areas, of which--
       (A) two shall meet the requirements of subsection 
     (c)(1)(A); and
       (B) two others shall meet the requirements of subsection 
     (c)(1)(B).
       (3)(A) Notwithstanding subsection (f), the Secretary shall 
     provide for an annual evaluation of the demonstration project 
     under subsection (d) that meets the requirements of 
     subsection (f)(2).
       (B) The Comptroller shall review each evaluation provided 
     for under subparagraph (A).
       (C) Not later than September 15 in each of 2000 through 
     2004, the Secretary shall submit a report on the results of 
     the evaluation under subparagraph (A) during such year, 
     together with the evaluation, to the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (D) Not later than December 31 in each of 2000 through 
     2004, the Comptroller General shall submit a report on the 
     results of the review under subparagraph (B) during such year 
     to the committees referred to in subparagraph (C).
       (i) Definitions.--In this section:

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment on 
behalf of myself, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. Faircloth.
  This vital measure would enhance the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program (FEHBP) demonstration provisions currently included in 
the Department of Defense Authorization bill to evaluate the 
feasibility of using this effective program to ensure the availability 
of adequate health care for Medicare-eligible retirees under the 
military health care system.
  Specifically, this amendment increases the number of FEHBP sites from 
two to four and accelerates the implementation of the program from 
January of 2000 to July of 1999.
  Mr. President, our nation's military retirees are facing a grave 
health care crisis. Current trends, such as base closures, the 
downsizing of military treatment facilities, and the introduction of 
TRICARE, have all hindered access to health care services for military 
retirees aged 65 and over. In theory, Medicare-eligible retirees can 
receive health care services at military treatment facilities on a 
space available basis; however, active duty and their dependents have 
priority.
  Therefore, in reality, space is rarely available--resulting in 
military retirees being ``locked out'' of the Department of Defense's 
(DoD) health care delivery system. And because of their considered 
``secondary status'', many retirees are forced to travel great 
distances to receive even the minimum of care.
  Further, when compared to what other Federal and private sector 
retirees receive in terms of health care options, it is clear that the 
current health care choices for military retirees are woefully 
inadequate and downright inexcusable.
  This is outrageous. The bottom line is military retirees aged 65 and 
older do not have time to wait for health care solutions, especially 
when our nation is losing 30,000 world War II veterans each month. It 
is high time that the federal government lives up to its promise of 
providing health care to those who honorably served our country.
  Although this amendment is not everything I wanted, it is a step in 
the right direction. I am pleased that the Armed Services Committee was 
able to address this problem, but I remain concerned that the DoD 
Authorization bill caps total funding for all the various demonstration 
projects at $60 million a year, of which only a portion would be 
available for the FEHBP demonstration.
  Mr. President, I understand the budgetary constraints that the 
Committee faces; however, this does not excuse us from our moral 
obligation to provide those military retirees who faithfully and 
selflessly served our country in times of war and in times of peace the 
health care they deserve. Our country must live up to the promise of 
providing military retirees more dependable, consistent, and affordable 
care while simultaneously applying equitable standards of health care 
for all federal retirees.
  Make no doubt about it--this battle has just begun. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in conference in securing increased funding 
and sites for this purpose--as represented in the House's DoD 
Authorization bill. And again, I thank the distinguished Chairmen, 
Senator Thurmond, and Senator Kempthorne, for their efforts.
  Mr. THURMOND. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2779) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2780

     (Purpose: To authorize amounts for NATO common-funded budgets)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Thurmond, I 
offer an amendment which would authorize funds for the NATO military 
budget and the NATO Security Investment Program for fiscal year 1999.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself and Mr. 
     Thurmond, proposes an amendment numbered 2780.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. 219. NATO COMMON-FUNDED CIVIL BUDGET.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     201(1), $750,000 shall be available for contributions for the 
     common-funded Civil Budget of NATO.
       At the end of subtitle B of title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 314. NATO COMMON-FUNDED MILITARY BUDGET.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     30(a)(1), $227,377,000 shall be available for contributions 
     for the common-funded Military Budget of NATO.
       At the end of subtitle A of title X, insert the following:

     SEC. 1014. AMOUNT AUTHORIZED FOR CONTRIBUTIONS FOR NATO 
                   COMMON-FUNDED BUDGETS.

       (a) Total Amount.--Contributions are authorized to be made 
     in fiscal year 1999 for the

[[Page S6692]]

     common-funded budgets of NATO, out of funds available for the 
     Department of Defense for that purpose, in the total amount 
     that is equal to the sum of (1) the amounts of the unexpended 
     balances, as of the end of fiscal year 1998, of funds 
     appropriated for fiscal years before fiscal year 1999 for 
     payments for such budgets, (2) the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated under section 301(a)(1) that is available for 
     contributions for the NATO common-funded military budget 
     under section 314, (3) the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated under section 201(1) that is available for 
     contribution for the NATO common-funded civil budget under 
     section 219, and (4) the total amount of the contributions 
     authorized to be made under section 2501.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``common-funded 
     budgets of NATO'' means the Military Budget, the Security 
     Investment Program, and the Civil Budget of NATO (and any 
     successor or additional account or program of NATO).

  Mr. LEVIN. I believe the amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. THURMOND. The amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2780) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay it on the table.


                           Amendment No. 2781

    (Purpose: To require reports on the development of the European 
        Security and Defense Identity within the NATO alliance)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which would require 
the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to Congress on the 
development of the NATO European Security Defense Initiative by 
December 15, 1998, and thereafter on a semiannual basis, until such 
time as the Secretary of Defense states that an ESDI has been fully 
established.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2781.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1031. REPORTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EUROPEAN 
                   SECURITY AND DEFENSE IDENTITY.

       (a) Requirement for Reports.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees in 
     accordance with this section reports on the development of 
     the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI) within the 
     NATO Alliance that would enable the Western European Union 
     (WEU), with the consent of the NATO Alliance, to assume the 
     political control and strategic direction of NATO assets and 
     capabilities made available by the Alliance.
       (b) Reports To Be Submitted.--The reports required to be 
     submitted under subsection (a) are as follows:
       (1) An initial report, submitted not later than December 
     15, 1998, that contains a discussion of the actions taken, 
     and the plans for future actions, to build the European 
     Security and Defense Identity, together with the matters 
     required under subsection (c).
       (2) A semiannual report on the progress made toward 
     establishing the European Security and Defense Identity, 
     submitted not later than March 15 and December 15 of each 
     year after 1998.
       (c) Content of Reports.--The Secretary shall include in 
     each report under this section the following:
       (1) A discussion of the arrangements between NATO and the 
     Western European Union for the release, transfer, monitoring, 
     return, and recall of NATO assets and capabilities.
       (2) A discussion of the development of such planning and 
     other capabilities by the Western European Union that are 
     necessary to provide political control and strategic 
     direction of NATO assets and capabilities.
       (3) A discussion of the development of terms of reference 
     for the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, with respect 
     to the European Security and Defense Identity.
       (4) A discussion of the arrangements for the assignment or 
     appointment of NATO officers to serve in two positions 
     concurrently (commonly referred to as ``dual-hatting'').
       (5) A discussion of the development of the Combined Joint 
     Task Force (CJTF) concept, including lessons-learning from 
     the NATO-led Stabilization Force in Bosnia.
       (6) Identification within the NATO Alliance of the types of 
     separable but not separate capabilities, assets, and support 
     assets for Western European Union-led operations.
       (7) Identification of separable but not separate 
     headquarters, headquarters elements, and command positions 
     for command and conduct of Western European Union-led 
     operations.
       (8) The conduct by NATO, at the request of and in 
     coordination with the Western European Union, of military 
     planning and exercises for illustrative missions.
       (9) A discussion of the arrangements between NATO and the 
     Western European Union for the sharing of information, 
     including intelligence.
       (10) Such other information as the Secretary considers 
     useful for a complete understanding of the establishment of 
     the European Security and Defense Identity within the NATO 
     Alliance.
       (d) Termination of Semiannual Reporting Requirement.--No 
     report is required under subsection (b)(2) after the 
     Secretary submits under that subsection a report in which the 
     Secretary states that the European Security and Defense 
     Identity has been fully established.

  Mr. LEVIN. I believe this amendment has been cleared on the other 
side.
  Mr. THURMOND. The amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2781) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have brief remarks in concluding today, 
a very productive day on the defense authorization bill.
  I wish to personally thank the distinguished chairman, Mr. Thurmond, 
and the ranking member, for covering a number of amendments today, 
including those of the Senator from Virginia while I was momentarily 
off the floor. Chairman Thurmond will bring the bill back up again on 
Monday. It will be the business.
  I will have further extensive remarks on Monday as regards the 
complex issue of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The American commitments there 
in connection with our NATO allies are very important commitments, and 
certain observations relative to Kosovo.
  Given the cloture motion, I am not sure whether our bill will have 
opened the opportunity for amendments on these issues. It is a subject 
that has been carefully considered by the Armed Services Committee in 
four meetings. We feel very strongly that there is an obligation in the 
Congress, which no one has spoken to with greater clarity and greater 
sincerity than the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. He did 
so at a hearing of the Armed Services Committee on June 4 of this year. 
Senator Byrd and Senator Hutchison of Texas have worked very hard and 
diligently on this subject. But I am not sure as to what will evolve in 
the days to come on this bill.
  I wish to make several observations about this subject. I, too, have 
thought about introducing an amendment on this subject. But these are 
the concerns that I have.
  None of us could perceive with specificity what has happened in 
Kosovo, what is happening today, and what could happen in the future. 
That is a key that is directly linked to the continuing policies of the 
United States, together with our allies in Bosnia.
  Great progress has been made in Bosnia towards the Dayton accords. I 
was not in favor at any time and voted against the introduction of U.S. 
ground forces. Nevertheless, that decision was made and endorsed by the 
Congress of the United States. They have performed absolutely 
courageously, and have contributed to a measure of peace and stability 
that exists in Bosnia today. They have worked remarkably well with our 
allies. There are some 13 various allies which have contributed to this 
NATO-led force to bring about the current stability. I will speak 
further on Monday as to the details.
  But I want to comment on a couple of factors that I hope Senators 
will take into consideration should they want to go into further 
discussions of this area.
  First, there will be very important elections held in the political 
structure of Bosnia in September. Hopefully, the outcome of those 
elections, in terms of the candidates that succeed, will further move 
efforts towards achieving the Dayton accords. We cannot anticipate here 
in June what that situation will be, nor can we anticipate with any 
specificity the problems in Kosovo. Hopefully, the initiatives, indeed, 
by President Yeltsin, by President Clinton, and by many others in the 
United Kingdom and France will address that situation so that we will 
not witness further tragic displacement of people from their homes, 
communities, and to

[[Page S6693]]

worsen the flow of refugees from that region. We simply cannot stand by 
and watch that persecution.
  I remember so well. We always talked in terms of Bosnia, that we have 
to contain that so it will not spill over into the Kosovo region. Now 
just the reverse has taken place. It is Kosovo which threatens to spill 
over, dislodge, and disrupt some of the achievements that have occurred 
so far in Bosnia.
  So the elections are important. The unfolding developments in 
Kosovo--we cannot predict today what they will be a month from now, or 
6 months from now.
  Further, there will be a new Congress elected by the people of our 
country in November. They will take their seats, such Members as new 
Members who come and those who will depart. We will have a new 
Congress.
  It seems to me that the new Congress is entitled to take a fresh look 
at this situation.
  We also must take into consideration that we are working today with 
our allies on a variety of contingencies as they relate to Kosovo, and 
any legislation which is directed to the future of our commitment in 
Bosnia; that is, the extent the ground forces remain in place, the 
extent perhaps of their withdrawal and the force levels and the like, 
sends signals to people, particularly President Milosevic, who, indeed, 
is the prime perpetrator of the problems in that region, in my 
judgment, and we have to be very careful, because on the one hand if we 
address the future of U.S. commitments in Bosnia and at the same time 
we are trying to work out contingency plans with our allies, those two 
actions, in my judgment, have to go hand in hand.
  So it is terribly important that those addressing this issue take 
into consideration again the transitory nature of the Kosovo problem, 
the elections that are coming up, and the fact there will be a new 
Congress, and therefore any action that we take should not be taken--
and I am hesitant to think we should take any action now--with regard 
to dictating in many respects to the Commander in Chief what is to be 
done in that region beginning, say, next spring. I think we have to be 
very careful to recognize the constitutional responsibilities of 
President Clinton in this area, and we should do nothing to abridge 
those constitutional responsibilities.
  So having said that, I will address this subject further on Monday, 
but I just wanted to lay down in today's Record some of my concerns 
about this very important issue. It is driven in large measure by the 
fact that the Armed Forces of the United States today have expended 
some $9.4 billion for the Bosnia action to date and through fiscal year 
1998, and those dollars could, in my judgment, have been spent very 
wisely for modernization, for research and development, and for 
readiness. Those three areas are of prime concern as regards our 
military today, and they are very, very serious concerns. We will 
address those areas further as we consider the authorization bill. But 
it is an expensive commitment there in terms of dollars and U.S. 
troops, and it seems to me that we have to continually work with our 
allies so that those allies, particularly the European allies, take a 
greater percentage of this burden in the months to come.
  It is clear that we cannot hope to achieve the Dayton accords in a 
period of time, perhaps within a year or so. General Clarke, when he 
appeared before our committee, could not in any way--and we understand 
this--specify his estimate of time within which those accords of Dayton 
could be achieved. But nevertheless, it is the allied forces under the 
NATO in place today that have enabled the progress to date that we are 
all very fortunate to witness.
  Now, Mr. President, I will return now to the closing business of 
today's session of the Senate.

                          ____________________