Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 81 (Friday, June 19, 1998)

[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.

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

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.

____________________