[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6973-S6991]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           *   *   *   *   *

       I urge you not to tie the Department's hands by enacting 
     legislative provisions that address one or two components of 
     a far more complex force management issue.

  I should remind Members of the Senate, there are about 30 
recommendations that were made by the Kassebaum-Baker Commission back 
in December; 28 of those 30 recommendations were implemented by the 
Secretary of Defense--28 of the 30 recommendations. But let's hear from 
the United States Army, again, in a letter to the chairman of the 
committee, Chief of Staff, General Reimer. He says in his letter:

       Segregating their units into gender unique platoons for 
     training and billeting the soldiers by gender in separate 
     buildings will degrade the commander's ability to command and 
     control his or her unit.

  Admiral Johnson, Chief of Naval Operations, said in a letter to the 
chairman:

       During basic training, Navy's gender-integrated divisions 
     perform at least as well as their all-male counterparts.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       We agree wholeheartedly that Sailors in basic training must 
     have safe, secure housing and living arrangements that 
     promote effective training. But Sailors should also learn to 
     live and work together from the first day of training. This 
     is how they will serve at sea, as part of a gender-integrated 
     unit.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       I ask that you continue to allow Navy to build our gender-
     integrated team from the first day of basic training.
  Admiral Pilling, who is the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, in his 
letter to the chairman of the committee:

       This experience builds effective teamwork and establishes 
     Navy standards during the crucial transformation from 
     civilian to Sailor. Roughly a third of all recruits and 40 
     percent of women report to the Fleet without follow-on 
     advanced training. For these men and women, preparation for 
     shipboard life is limited to boot camp and less than three 
     weeks of Apprentice Training.

                               * * * * *

       Learning about security, privacy, dignity and personal 
     responsibility should not be a lesson left for the Fleet to 
     teach. I ask that you continue to allow Navy to build our 
     gender-integrated team from the first day of basic training.

  And General Ryan of the Air Force. He said in his letter to the 
chairman:

       The training process in the Air Force has developed over 
     the years, with changes along the way, to best support our 
     mission. To place artificial barriers between men and women 
     in basic training, such as those proposed in the current 
     House bill [and basically embodied in some of the legislation 
     offered by the Senator from Kansas], is counterproductive to 
     our training philosophy and sends the wrong signal to our new 
     recruits.

                               * * * * *

       I respectfully request your support to allow the Air Force 
     to keep training as we operate--together from the start.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Maine could 
just yield for a unanimous consent request. I believe it has been 
cleared. I want to make sure it is cleared with her staff.
  Ms. SNOWE. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. President, because Members are trying to get a fix on schedules 
for this evening, in consultation with the managers and the leaders, I 
would like to propound a unanimous consent request.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour of debate--an additional 
hour from this point forward--on the pending second-degree amendment, 
equally divided and controlled by Senator Brownback and Senator Snowe, 
with a vote to occur on the second-degree amendment not later than 8 
p.m.
  The reason for that is that many Senators had been told that there 
would be a vote at 8. They have planned their schedules accordingly. If 
we can agree to this now with an additional hour of debate equally 
controlled by the two Senators, we can then schedule that vote for 8 
o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator for yielding and ask her pardon for 
the interruption.
  Ms. SNOWE. I appreciate the Senator's unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to also quote a letter from 
the Senior Noncommissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the United 
States, representing the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy. They said:

       As the Senior Noncommissioned Officers of the Armed Forces 
     of the United States, we feel compelled to state our 
     disagreement with a proposed amendment on recruit training 
     that might be considered during the Senate's debate of the 
     FY99 Defense Bill. A mandatory requirement to house recruits 
     in completely separate barracks is unnecessary.
       Based on our experience, each Service is different and 
     therefore has different needs in training its recruits to 
     join operational units. The determination as to how to train 
     recruits is best determined by the individual Services based 
     on the specific needs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
     Marines. Any attempt to make a training policy that applies 
     across all Services is not in the best interests of the 
     nation and will impact the readiness of the total force.
       Their many successes in our gender-integrated all-volunteer 
     force is a direct result of the training the Services 
     currently provide.
       We are grateful for Secretary Cohen's support of the 
     Services in determining how best to conduct recruit training. 
     We respectfully request the same vote of confidence from you 
     as the Senate considers the fiscal year 1999 defense 
     authorization bill.

  We also had a quote from the Army Research Institute study, and I 
think it is interesting to note, about the standards that have also 
been developed in this environment of basic training, so that there is 
no misunderstanding, unless there is any concern about the role that 
women are playing and their ability to perform during the course of 
basic training. I quote:

       Females trained in a gender-integrated environment improved 
     their performance in all measures of physical fitness (push-
     ups, sit-ups, 2-mile run) and the males in gender-integrated 
     training improved in two of three events. This has occurred 
     without the Army fitness standards being changed or adjusted 
     for gender-integrated training.

  In the December report of the Federal Advisory Committee, which is, 
of course, the Kassebaum-Baker commission, it said:

       The committee believes that the increasing number of women 
     in expanded roles is an important reason why the United 
     States is able to maintain an effective and efficient 
     volunteer military force.

  Another letter, from the Secretary of the Army in 1997 to Congress. 
He said:

       Turning the clock back to gender segregated training will 
     result in unrealistic training which degrades readiness.

  I mention these quotes, Mr. President, because I think it is 
important that we remind ourselves of the role that women do play in 
our military and will play in our military, and as they have in the 
last 100 years. They represent 14 percent of armed services, and the 
armed services cannot perform without them.
  I just believe it is important to make sure that we can ensure the 
stature and the well-being of all those who serve our country. That is 
why I believe we should follow the wisdom and the judgment of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee--indeed, the Congress last

[[Page S6974]]

year, when we enacted a provision to create a congressional commission 
to examine all of these issues and to report back to the Congress next 
March.
  I hope the Senate will not adopt the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Kansas that basically presumes to substitute for the operational 
conclusions thus far of the Secretary of Defense; the chiefs of the 
Army, Air Force, the Navy; the training commanders of the Army, the Air 
Force, and the Navy; the senior noncommissioned officers of the Army, 
the Air Force and the Navy; the president of the Association of the 
United States Army; and the tens of thousands of recruits who train and 
live in security on a daily basis.
  I hope, Mr. President, that the Senate will adopt the amendment that 
has been offered by the Senator from Michigan, the ranking member of 
the Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Georgia, Senator 
Cleland, and myself to reaffirm the judgment that has been rendered by 
the Congress last year in creating this commission.
  The amendment that is offered by the Senator from Kansas mismatches a 
problem and a cure. Professional relationships and effective 
performance throughout the Armed Forces flow from a training world that 
overlaps with the real and the uncertain ones in which men and women 
will ultimately be deployed as we have seen in Bosnia, as we have seen 
in the Persian Gulf, as we have seen in Somalia over and over again.

  I urge the adoption of the amendment that has been offered by myself, 
Senator Cleland, and Senator Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Who yields time?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield 5 minutes--and there are several of my 
colleagues who want to speak on this, but Senator Coats has been a 
leading voice on this, serving on the committee--I yield 5 minutes to 
the Senator from Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I 
appreciate the opportunity to speak now. I have been off the floor, and 
I have another commitment, but I wanted to come and offer my support to 
his amendment.
  I struggled with this issue when I was, first, ranking member and 
then chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee. I visited most of the 
training facilities for the various services around the country. I 
talked to those in charge. We held hearings on the issue. We heard from 
the experts. We talked to those who lived with the situation in their 
basic training. It is my inescapable conclusion that the Kassebaum 
commission did a good job in sorting this out and producing a report 
which called for separate facilities.
  I, frankly, was surprised with the conclusion of the commission. I 
didn't think when it was constituted that the commission would come to 
that conclusion. It was something that I was strongly leaning toward, 
and all the visits that I made and the people I discussed this issue 
with seemed to indicate that separate barracks was the direction to go.
  When the commission came forth with this recommendation after a more 
thorough look than I was able to give, I thought this added a lot of 
weight to the question. There is no doubt in my mind that effective 
training and effective gender integration of the armed services can be 
accomplished without the necessity of forcing the issue through gender 
integration within the living facilities.
  Obviously, they are going to train together. Obviously, they are 
going to go to class together, they are going to go to the range 
together, they are going to train together. The essential functions 
that are attempting to be accomplished in basic training are going to 
be accomplished. The real question here is when the training day is 
done and you return to the barracks to unwind, to shower, to prepare in 
the evening for the next day and to sleep, is it best to do that in 
gender separate facilities? I believe it is. This where the issue is.
  I have talked to a lot of drill sergeants, men and women; I have 
talked to a lot of men and women soldiers, trainees; and the 
inescapable conclusion that I have reached, and I think most of them 
have reached, is that it would be much more comfortable without 
degrading the training, and it would eliminate a lot of the supervisory 
problems, management problems, and, frankly, the social problems that 
exist with living at too close quarters.
  For that reason, I think the conclusions of the Kassebaum commission 
are correct. I think the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas 
is the right way to go.
  I was concerned about the costs. That is a legitimate question, as to 
whether or not separate facilities or separate barracks--in other 
words, taking a single entity and dividing it and controlling access, 
and so forth, to separate the sexes, versus separate buildings.
  And I was really persuaded. I knew ultimately, based on my visit to 
Parris Island with the Marines who already do this, that separate 
housing was the right policy. At Parris Island, the women live in a 
separate compound. And virtually, to a person, they told me--including 
their drill instructors and their supervisors--they told me they 
strongly preferred that. They are able to identify with each other. And 
to identify with their female drill instructors was very important to 
them.
  Many of them come from backgrounds where self-esteem is the casualty 
of their upbringing. They find that bonding with each other, the 
bonding that takes place with the drill instructors and their 
supervisors in those off-hours, the social interaction that takes place 
in those off-hours, is a very, very important part of their 
development, the character development, and a whole number of other 
areas.
  And so I think this makes sense. I am convinced we have looked at the 
situation. I am convinced we can do this in a financially feasible way.
  I see my time has expired. And I am happy to support the amendment of 
the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. SNOWE. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank the 
distinguished Senator from Maine.
  For those who are entering into this discussion, Mr. President, 
nowhere, as far as I can tell as a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, in recruit training, in any service, do male and female 
recruits live in the same room or in the same squad bay. These 
conditions do not exist now and they did not exist when the incidents 
in Aberdeen took place.

  Male and female recruits do live in the same buildings. In some cases 
male and female recruits live in separate wings or on separate floors, 
and in some cases they live on the same floors but are separated by 
fire-safe barrier walls. In every case, the male and female recruits 
have controlled entrances and exits to their sleeping areas and have 
segregated toilet and shower facilities. The services are in the 
process of alarming all doors, exits and walls.
  The bottom line, Mr. President, is that in every case, in every 
service, although they might not live in separate buildings, male and 
female recruits live in physically safe, physically secure, and 
physically segregated living conditions.
  But, Mr. President, in the wake of the terrible incidents of sexual 
misconduct and sexual harassment that took place in Advanced Training 
at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, the National Defense Authorization Act of 
the last year established a congressional Commission on Military 
Training and Gender-Related Issues to review the requirements regarding 
cross-gender relationships of members of the Armed Forces and to review 
the basic training programs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine 
Corps, and to make improvements on the programs.
  The idea for the commission came from the distinguished senior 
Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who noted at the time:

       * * * there must be ways to thoroughly examine, review, and 
     evaluate the reasons for

[[Page S6975]]

     the recent spate of scandals regarding sexual relations in 
     training commands. Such a study should be made by an 
     independent blue-ribbon body with unquestioned credentials--
     with no social agenda, but geared solely to the effect of 
     gender integration at all levels of the military.

  Earlier this year, the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee appointed five distinguished Americans to that 
commission. Their counterparts on the House National Security Committee 
also appointed five outstanding individuals.
  The commissioners include two retired Marine Corps lieutenant 
generals, a retired Army command sergeant major, a former Assistant 
Secretary of Defense, a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, three 
distinguished academics, a military historian/national security 
analyst, and an expert on legal issues concerning women in the 
military.
  I have personally met with these commissioners and am convinced they 
understand the magnitude of the awesome task we have laid before them, 
and that they are eminently qualified and motivated to do the job.
  Because of our commitment to doing the right thing--as opposed to 
doing something quickly--the Armed Services Committee in the Senate 
included in its markup a provision to provide for a moratorium on 
changes to policies or practices regarding segregation on the basis of 
gender.
  The second-degree amendment Senator Snowe and I have offered retains 
the moratorium on changes to policies or practices regarding 
segregation on the basis of gender. I believe this is a very reasonable 
approach. It does not seek to prejudge the outcome of the commission's 
work.
  Additionally, it permits the commission to retain its independence. I 
believe this is an unwise course of action if we preempt the work of 
the commission. I know how I would feel if I responded to the call to 
serve on such a commission and was willing to dedicate my time for, 
say, a year of my life to study these complicated issues, only to find 
the same people--in this case, the Congress--who asked me to take on 
the issue, told me before I ever really got started in my work how they 
felt already.

  I would wonder if they really wanted a thoughtful, professional 
analysis or if they only wanted the appearance of a study to support 
preconceived ideas and predetermined agendas. I do not believe this was 
the Senate's intention when it supported the bill authorizing the 
Defense Act last year.
  We have established a process to review gender-related matters in 
their entirety. It does not make sense, to me, for us to separate out 
one or two aspects of this incredibly complex issue and to provide some 
piecemeal solution with little or no thought of the consequences our 
actions could have on the rest of the military--recruiting as well as 
training and retention.
  I am aware that the recommendation for separate barracks for male and 
female recruits came from the Kassebaum committee appointed by the 
Secretary of Defense. I am also aware that the Secretary of Defense has 
decided not to implement that recommendation. And the uniformed 
leadership--the most senior officers and enlisted members of the Army, 
Navy, and Air Force--also oppose the recommendation.
  For example, Mr. President, our committee received a letter from 
General Reimer, Chief of Staff of the Army, who said:

       Segregating their units into gender unique platoons for 
     training and billeting the solders by gender in separate 
     buildings will degrade the commander's ability to command and 
     control his or her unit.

  Admiral Johnson, Chief of Naval Operations:

       Sailors should learn to live and work together from the 
     first day of training.

  Admiral Pilling, Vice Chief of Naval Operations:

       Learning about security, privacy, dignity and personal 
     responsibility should not be a lesson left for the fleet to 
     teach.

  General Ryan, Chief of Staff of the Air Force:

       The saying ``train as we operate'' is more than a catch 
     phrase, it is an absolute necessity to ensure that team 
     building begins on the first day our recruits report to basic 
     training.

  Senior enlisted members also commented on this issue as well.

       Any attempt [they said] to make a training policy that 
     applies across all Services is not in the best interest of 
     the nation and will impact the readiness of the total force.

  Mr. President, in terms of the readiness of the force, I was recently 
in Bosnia a few weeks ago. And I did see on a fire base there women 
actively engaged in work on the fire base. But I noticed that their 
living quarters were separate, safe, and secure. It was an incredible 
demonstration to me that women and men can serve in this Nation's 
interests in foreign lands and do so extremely well.
  I would also like to note that the Kassebaum report itself has 
actually been criticized by the GAO because of flawed methodology. 
According to GAO, the value of the Kassebaum committee's methodology is 
limited for making conclusions and recommendations, and the extent to 
which the committee's work supports its conclusions and recommendations 
cannot be determined.
  When the Secretary of Defense, a former Member of this body, and the 
uniformed leadership of the military, officers and enlisted, oppose 
something, I certainly take time to listen.
  Today, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to listen to the 
leadership of the military and give the Senate a chance to listen to 
the commission which we actually created and appointed to help us make 
decisions to guide us in these complex matters.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I support the Snowe amendment and urge my 
colleagues to adopt it.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the Senator from Alabama 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I had 13 years in the Army Reserve and went through a 
basic training program. It was a very worthwhile experience for me. I 
played football. I have been to basic training, and basic training is 
worse and tougher. Anybody that survives that has my admiration.
  I have had the opportunity through the years to serve with some 
outstanding women soldiers, the kind of soldiers that you respect and 
are capable and have great ability to contribute to the mission of the 
unit. It is something that I think is a major part of American military 
life and we should not be changing.
  I understand there is a lot of talk about separation and use of the 
word ``segregation'' based on gender. But it seems to me that Senator 
Brownback's amendment simply says that in basic training these 
soldiers, men and women, shouldn't be housed together. I think that is 
a reasonable approach and something that comports with my sense of what 
makes sense, my sense of what I understand the Senator to be saying, 
and I think it is the right idea.
  Some might say it is the responsibility of the NCOs and the officers 
to maintain moral control over the soldiers. When they are in such a 
mixed environment, the officers and NCOs can't maintain control over 
these young people. They are in a circumstance that is a different 
world; it is a whole different environment they are in. Things that 
they would have thought to do under other circumstances may not be done 
under these circumstances.
  I say we have separate barracks. It seems to me if we are going to 
separate the 14 percent of the soldiers that are women within existing 
barracks, it seems to me you are converting whole floors that would 
otherwise be half used. For example, most of the barracks I was in had 
20 people on one floor and 20 on the next. So I suppose a few people 
would be on the second floor and the bottom floor would be full. That 
is the way they were traditionally done.
  I don't see how it would be any cost to have separate housing for 
women in which women could have the support of their NCOs under those 
circumstances and men could have separate housing. I think both parties 
would benefit from that.
  The commission did a lot of work. We have been talking about a new 
commission. I point out that we had one. Senator Nancy Kassebaum-Baker 
and others did a thorough job. They talked to

[[Page S6976]]

over 1,000 trainees, 500 instructors, 300 first-term service members, 
and 275 supervisors. I don't know who the chiefs of staff and Secretary 
of Army is talking to. I don't know, maybe they are talking to too many 
people in the Pentagon. But those commissioned, the ones in power to 
make a decision, went out and talked to soldiers, trainees, 1,000, 500 
instructors--the drill instructors out there with these men and women 
on a daily basis, and this commission unanimously reached a conclusion 
that separate housing would be preferable. They also concluded that 
separate training would be preferable.
  As a matter of fact, I tend to agree with that based on my 
experience. But that is not before the Senate today. That is not what 
Senator Brownback is calling on us to do today.
  Senator Brownback is suggesting that what we ought to do is have 
separate housing, a readily achievable thing, I suggest.
  I agree with the commission based on my experience and the study I 
have done, that separate housing will decrease disciplinary problems, 
it will reduce distractions during the training process, and as the 
commission found, will be of marginal cost to the Department of 
Defense.
  I am pleased to support this amendment. I think it is time that this 
body raised our concerns. There are many problems that are occurring. 
Senator Brownback has eloquently discussed those. We hate to talk about 
the problems that are occurring, but they need to be discussed. I think 
it is the right thing.
  I yield back my time to the Senator from Kansas, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. THURMOND. I want to thank the able Senator from Maine for the 
excellent remarks she made on this subject.
  Mr. President, I am sympathetic to the Brownback amendment, however, 
last year, the Congress established a commission to review the conduct 
of military training and gender-related issues, we should await the 
outcome of its findings. That commission is constituted and working. 
One of the areas which the commission must specifically address in its 
final report is a recommendation as to how to provide for a safe and 
secure living environment for young men and women in basic training. 
This amendment would preempt the work of the commission by establishing 
a statutory requirement that basic trainees be housed in separate 
barracks.
  I join Senator Brownback and others in insisting that the military 
services provide a safe and secure environment for all military 
personnel, but especially those in basic training who may be the most 
vulnerable.
  On June 8, 1998, Secretary Cohen asked us not to legislate a specific 
solution as Senator Brownback's amendment does. Secretary Cohen urged 
that we give the Service Chiefs the flexibility to house and train 
their personnel in the manner determined to be most effective for that 
service. We all recognize that each of the four services is unique. 
Each service has its own culture, history and traditions. I agree with 
Secretary Cohen that we should not legislate how they must house and 
train their personnel.
  Mr. President, I could support an amendment that would require the 
Service Secretaries to provide for a safe and secure environment 
without specifically requiring a standard solution for three of the 
four services. Senator Brownback's amendment goes beyond requiring a 
safe and secure environment and will require millions of dollars in 
military construction and renovation projects to make their barracks 
conform to the requirements in the amendment.
  I prefer to allow the Congressional Commission to do its work and 
make its recommendations next March before we act. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this amendment.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. President, while I have the floor, I ask unanimous consent Mr. 
David Landfair, a military fellow in the Office of Senator Mike DeWine, 
be granted privilege of the floor during the pendency of S. 2057, the 
fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense authorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if Senator Snowe would yield 10 minutes to me?
  How much time does the Senator from Maine have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 13 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield 8 minutes to me?
  Ms. SNOWE. I was going to yield to the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Personnel for 5 minutes, so the remainder of the time I yield to the 
Senator.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask that the Senator from Maine, then, yield 8 minutes 
to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. First of all, Mr. President, we have all read about some 
terrible incidents that occurred at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds that 
gave rise to much of the concern about recruit training. Those 
incidents did not occur in recruit training. They did not occur in 
recruit sleeping areas. They did not involve sexual misconduct among 
recruits. They took place in advanced individual training, which is a 
phase of training which takes place after an individual graduates from 
recruit training. The incidents that give rise to so much of this 
understandable concern did not occur in the recruit training area or 
phase which this first-degree amendment would address.
  I want to emphasize something on which the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee has just spoken. We appointed a committee or a 
commission, 10 citizens. These are distinguished citizens that were 
selected by the chairman, by me, by the chairman of our counterpart 
committee in the House, and by the ranking member in the House. This 
commission is underway. We picked 10 distinguished citizens.
  We asked them to look at a particular agenda, a list of items. We set 
forth their duties and they are now fulfilling those duties.
  This is what our law said, and this is something which had broad 
support in this body. The law said:

       The commission shall consider issues relating to personal 
     relationships of members of the Armed Forces as follows: 
     Review the laws, regulations, policies, directives and 
     practices that govern personal relationships between men and 
     women in the Armed Forces and personal relationships between 
     members of the Armed Forces and nonmilitary personnel of the 
     opposite sex. Assess the extent to which the laws, 
     regulations, policies, directives and practices have been 
     applied consistently throughout the Armed Forces, without 
     regard to the Armed Forces, grade, rank or gender of the 
     individuals involved.

  Then comes the third thing we ask them to do. This was a knowing, 
conscious request--a statement to this commission, saying this is your 
duty:

       Duty No. 3: Assess the reports of the independent panel, 
     the Department of Defense task force, and the review of 
     existing guidance on fraternization and adultery that have 
     been required by the Secretary of Defense.

  Our good friend from Kansas has said that common sense dictates that 
since the Kassebaum Commission made this recommendation, we ought to 
follow it. No. Common sense dictates that when we appoint a commission 
with the explicit duty of assessing the Kassebaum Commission report--
when we do that knowingly and openly, when we ask 10 distinguished 
citizens to give up part of their life to come here and assess the 
Kassebaum report, which is what we did in last year's law, that we not 
simply say, whoops, some of us liked the Kassebaum report and we are 
now going to adopt that and bypass the very commission that we created. 
I mean, what is the point of the Senate of the United States and the 
House of Representatives unanimously tasking a group of citizens to 
look at the Kassebaum Commission report, among other things, and now 
once that report is issued, because some of us like the recommendation, 
we take that piece of the report and say that we are now going to put 
that into law and bypass our own commission? I think it makes a mockery 
of the process that we ourselves set into motion. We should not do 
that.
  Now, since I have a couple more minutes, I want to state what some of 
the underlying facts are about the way in which the males and females 
live.
  First, nowhere in recruit training in any service do male and female 
recruits live in the same room or in the

[[Page S6977]]

same squad bay. These conditions do not exist now, and they did not 
exist when the incidents at Aberdeen took place. Male and female 
recruits do live in the same buildings, and in some cases, they live in 
separate wings or on separate floors. In some cases, they live on the 
same floors, but are separated by fire-safe barrier walls. But in every 
case, male and female recruits have controlled entrances and exits to 
their sleeping areas, and have segregated toilet and shower facilities.
  Now, what have the services told us about this? The heads of the 
services have told us, ``Do not change this now.'' The heads of the 
services have told us this. The chief professionals have told us this. 
The senior enlisted members of the Army, Navy and Air Force, have 
written to the committee opposing the amendment. These are the 
professionals that we rely on. When it comes to the matters affecting 
the safety, welfare, and well-being of the men and women in our 
military, these are the people we rely on. These are the professionals. 
They have asked us, ``Do not enact this legislation.'' So on both 
counts--that our top military officials, uniform and civilian, have 
asked us to not enact this legislation, and the fact that we have 
appointed a commission that is going to give us a recommendation, which 
we put in place, in part, to review the Kassebaum Commission report--we 
should not take this action tonight.
  Finally, the sergeant major of the Army, the master chief petty 
officer of the Navy, and the chief master sergeant of the Air Force 
have written us a letter, which was referred to by a number of my 
colleagues. I will not repeat the portions that they read. But I am 
going to quote one paragraph that I believe has not been read. This 
summarizes, to me, what the really critical point is, which was so well 
stated by the Senators from Maine and Georgia, and others. This is what 
they say:

       Each time our Nation has asked the Army, Navy, Air Force or 
     Marines to do a job, it has been done. Men and women 
     soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines accomplish the tasks 
     asked of them every day in places like Bosnia, Haiti, 
     Southwest Asia, and the Far East. Their many successes in our 
     gender-integrated All-Volunteer force is a direct result of 
     the training the services currently provide.

  I hope that we will listen to these professionals.
  These are the individuals who went to boot camp and have come up 
through the ranks to the highest position possible for an enlisted 
member. When it comes to matters affecting the safety, welfare, and 
well-being of the men and women in our military, these are the experts! 
And, they have asked us not to enact this legislation.
  That leaves us with the question: Who wants this legislation and why? 
What problem will it solve?
  Neither the military nor civilian leadership of the Department of 
Defense or of the Military Departments want it.
  The senior enlisted members of the Army, Navy and Air Force see it as 
unnecessary.
  Finally, it short-circuits the work of a Congressional Commission of 
distinguished citizens that this body voted into law less than one year 
ago.
  The Armed Services Committee included in its mark-up a provision to 
provide for a moratorium on changes to policies or practices regarding 
segregation of integration on the basis of gender that is within the 
responsibility of the Commission appointed by the Congress, until that 
Commission terminates in March 1999.
  I believe that it would be both short-sighted and very unfortunate 
for the Senate to adopt the Brownback amendment and to cause the 
Department of Defense to expend in excess of $150 million against the 
collective judgment--military and civilian--of DOD and before we have 
had the opportunity to benefit from the advice of our own Commission.
  The second degree amendment Senators Cleland and Snowe have offered 
retains the moratorium on changes to policies or practices regarding 
segregation of integration on the basis of gender that is within the 
responsibility of the Commission appointed by the Congress, until that 
Commission terminates in March 1999.
  I believe that this is a very reasonable approach. It would permit 
the Army, Navy, and Air Force to continue to conduct recruit training 
in the manner best suited to producing soldiers, sailors, and airmen 
ready to meet the challenges of our military. Uniformed Leadership of 
our military--leaders to whose appointments we have given our advice 
and consent--say it best:
  General Reimer (Chief of Staff of the Army): ``Segregating their 
units into gender unique platoons for training and billeting the 
soldiers by gender in separate buildings will degrade the commander's 
ability to command and control his or her unit.''
  Admiral Johnson (Chief of Naval Operations): ``Sailors should learn 
to live and work together from the first day of training.''
  Admiral Pilling (Vice Chief of Naval Operations): ``Learning about 
security, privacy, dignity and personal responsibility should not be a 
lesson left for the fleet to teach.''
  General Ryan (Chief of Staff of the Air Force) ``The saying `train as 
we operate' is more than a catch phrase, it is an absolute necessity to 
ensure that team building begins on the first day our recruits report 
to basic training.''
  Senior Enlisted Members ``Any attempt to make a training policy that 
applies across all Services is not in the best interest of the nation 
and will impact the readiness of the total force.''
  I urge my colleagues to support the 2nd degree amendment and permit 
our Commission to complete the work we assigned to it and to report 
back to us before we direct any changes to recruit training.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was listening to the debate when the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama was relating to us his experiences 
in basic training, and I was thinking of my experiences in basic 
training. Quite frankly, I think I would have been for integration of 
the sexes when I was in basic training, but I am looking at it 
differently now than I did at that time.
  I would like to respond to something that the Senator from Michigan 
said. I have so much respect for him, but I disagree with him in this 
respect. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
Subcommittee on Readiness, I spend a lot of time talking to officers in 
the field, talking to enlisted people in the field, as does the ranking 
member, the Senator from Virginia. I find a discrepancy in what you 
hear in the field and what you hear from the chiefs.
  I am not saying this critically of the current chiefs, but I think 
the chiefs have always reflected the philosophy of the President. The 
President is the Commander in Chief. He is the guy responsible for 
their careers. So we hear different things from the chiefs here in 
Washington than I hear when I go out to the National Training Center, 
or to 29 Palms, or Fort Bragg, or to Camp Lejeune. They are very 
emphatic and supportive of that portion of the recommendations of the 
Kassebaum-Baker report having to do with housing.
  Thirdly, three different Members, while I have been sitting here, 
have gone into detail as to the makeup of the committee that we have 
asked for from our committee, and it is a very distinguished panel. But 
I think that we have kind of lost sight of the fact that the committee 
that we refer to as the Kassebaum-Baker committee was actually 
appointed under the supervision of Secretary of Defense William Cohen. 
He put together a committee and, frankly, I probably would not have put 
together the same committee. I would want it stacked a little bit the 
other way. Real briefly, I will go over the committee.
  They are: Richard Allen, retired vice admiral of the U.S. Navy; 
Robert Forman, retired lieutenant general, U.S. Army; Marcelite Harris, 
major general, retired, from the Air Force; Condoleezza Rice, a 
Stanford professor; Don Gardner, a retired major general from the 
Marine Corps; Deval Patrick, who was the Assistant Attorney General for 
Civil Rights, appointed by President Clinton. I mean, if there is 
anybody who would have a bias toward the administration, it would be 
this individual. Ginger Lee Simpson, retired U.S. Navy, and others.
  I suggest to my fellow Senators that this committee of 11 had a 
majority of women. On this committee of 11, 5 of

[[Page S6978]]

them were either retired generals or admirals.
  I would hold up this committee to be certainly comparable to the 
committee that had been discussed on this floor. I think any time you 
have a committee like this reaching a unanimous decision--all of these 
retired women from all the services, along with the former Assistant 
Attorney General in charge of civil rights appointed by President 
Clinton--and it was unanimous; they all agreed. I think when you have 
this unanimity, I can't imagine that any other committee is going to 
come up with a different result.
  What would happen is, it would delay the implementation of this by a 
year. If it is good now, and it is good a year from now, I think one 
year should make a tremendous difference in the morale of the services, 
which is certainly suffering at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, would you please notify me when I have consumed 4 
minutes?
  Mr. President, when you spoke so eloquently here, you said that 
Senator Brownback's amendment could be summarized in that the men and 
women should not be housed together. I totally agree, 100 percent; men 
and women should not be housed together. I think that the Senator from 
Maine agrees with me. There is no argument here.
  But when we talk about separate housing, I don't know that 
necessarily has to mean separate buildings, because when you look at 
the configuration of many of our structures out there--I agree with 
what Senator Brownback said, which was very effective. This idea that 
somehow you are going to use a plywood partition to separate, that is 
wrong. It ought to be permanent. You ought to have separate entrances. 
You ought to have separate common areas. You ought to have that. We 
should have that.
  But I believe that it is not necessary to go as far as Senator 
Brownback at this point. I think that can be created with existing 
structures. If not, then let's go ahead with the separate. But, you 
see, we are presupposing here.
  When we talk about the terrible incidents that have happened--and 
they are absolutely deplorable, deplorable. But I think in one of the 
cases that was referenced, a Navy drill instructor committed sexual 
misconduct with some of these individuals. But in none of those cases 
did the incidents take place in the sleeping bay of the barracks. It 
took place in the office of the drill instructor. It took place in the 
motel down the road. It is not in the bays.
  The idea that we cannot allow a drill instructor--I don't know how 
far that goes. Can the commanding officer enter the drill bay to have a 
meeting with the recruits, if he is escorted by someone of the same 
sex, who are in the barracks? I think that should be allowed. But I 
don't know that it is allowed here.
  I am just concerned that perhaps we have gone a little far.
  We have talked about the Kassebaum-Baker Commission. Do you know that 
they did not look at the advanced training? They looked strictly at 
basic.

  Why do I make that point? It is because it was at the advanced 
training at Aberdeen. That is where all of these incidents take place--
advanced training.
  We have put together a very effective group of commission members. It 
was a Kempthorne-Byrd amendment that created the commission. So I can't 
turn my back on that commission. That would be wrong. I am not going to 
turn my back on the Senator from Maine or the Senator from Georgia. 
That would be wrong. We created a commission in the Armed Services 
Committee.
  You may have seen, Mr. President, a few weeks ago the commission was 
about ready to split. Four were going to walk. Congressman Buyer and I 
met with them and said, ``Don't do this. Don't rule yourselves 
irrelevant. There is such a critical reason for this commission to 
exist. Stay together. Give us the answers.'' Now I am supposed to say 
to that commission, ``Oh, by the way, thanks for staying together, but 
we don't need your conclusions, because we are going to go ahead with 
all of this legislation, because I believe there is an amendment ready 
to come forward that is going to be removing integrated training.''
  Mr. President, I am going to repeat what you said. Men and women 
should not be housed together. No argument. No argument. But I believe 
we can accomplish that in the existing structure.
  I also think we have to support a commission that was put in place.
  Again, I want to compliment the Senator from Kansas. He has brought a 
meaningful issue before us. He has been articulate about it. Senator 
Brownback does a good job, but I think he has gone just a little far in 
this. Does separate housing mean you have to have separate housing and 
the cost that goes with that?
  I know the Senator from Virginia, Senator Robb, a member of the 
subcommittee, also would like to speak. I would like to turn my time 
over to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 25 seconds.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, in 25 seconds let me thank the Senator from 
Idaho. I agree with the points he has made.
  I have visited the training in Fort Jackson and Parris Island and 
examined these specific issues. I have asked for some reports from the 
GAO. That is coming in. But we established the commission to give us 
specific information to help make these decisions.
  I think the Senator from Maine has adopted the approach that makes 
sense. Let's wait for the commission to make its report and act on the 
basis of that information.
  With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas controls the remaining 
time, 15 minutes.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise today to strongly endorse the amendment of my 
friend, the Senior Senator from Kansas. This amendment would simply 
require the housing of male and female recruits in separate barracks 
during recruit training.
  It amazes me that this amendment is even necessary. Every attempt to 
return common sense to our military's recruit training policies has 
been obstructed by this administration--even those attempts initiated 
by the administration itself. Didn't the Secretary of Defense already 
convene a panel of distinguished military and civil rights experts to 
study this serious problem? Didn't this commission--the Kassebaum 
Commission--unanimously point out the critical importance of--among 
other things--giving each gender its own recruit housing? Hasn't the 
administration had over five years to make their misguided gender 
neutral policies work without success? Sadly and inexplicably, the 
answer to all these questions is yes.
  Now we have another commission. Are we going to continue to appoint 
and pay for commissions until we reach an answer that we like? Are we 
going to find it easier to appoint a commission than to make a 
decision? I believe this tactic is called paralysis by analysis. I also 
believe that the appropriate time to criticize a commission is before 
they report, not after.
  A few days of orientation for new recruits before they are kicked 
into the hormonal situation that we are putting them in would be 
helpful.
  Mr. President, the administration's arguments in favor of their 
social engineering are misleading, contradictory and quite 
unprecedented. How are they misleading? The Secretary of Defense has 
tried to garner support for his gender neutral training policies on the 
grounds that the military simply cannot do without women. The fact, 
however, is that no one on any side of this debate is advocating that 
women be purged from our military, and it is patently offensive to me 
that he would indicate that we are. We fully understand

[[Page S6979]]

the importance of women to the functioning of our military. All we are 
trying to do with this amendment is to give both genders a training 
environment in which they can realize their fullest potential.
  How are the administration's arguments contradictory? They argue that 
the military must train as it fights. They argue that since men and 
women serve together, they must train together, and be housed together. 
Yet one of the things discovered by the Kassebaum commission is that 
while male recruits are required to throw a hand grenade 35 meters, 
female recruits are only required to throw it 25 meters. Is the 
Secretary of Defense implying that our military intends to make sure 
our female soldiers are always 10 meters closer to the enemy than our 
male soldiers? Though this amendment would not address issues of 
training such as this, this type of thinking is indicative of the 
contradictory quality which pervades all aspects of this 
administration's recruit training policies--to include housing.
  How are the administration's arguments unprecedented? It is surely 
unprecedented to place a political agenda of social engineering above 
the simple requirements of national security. Five years of gender 
neutral training barracks have resulted only in lowered morale, one sex 
scandal after another, recruiting shortfalls for every branch but the 
Marine Corps which does not engage in this incredible practice, and a 
refusal of this administration to face these problems. It is noteworthy 
that eighteen months after the sex scandals at Aberdeen, the Kassebaum 
Commission found that the policies which precipitated them had still 
not been corrected. The Army, like the Navy and Air Force, have proven 
singularly unsuccessful in solving the problems associated with these 
misguided policies--policies which deny the existence of any emotional 
dynamics between young men and young women. This is less a reflection 
on the earnestness with which our military leaders have tried to 
implement these policies, than it is an indictment of these unworkable 
gender neutral policies themselves. Mr. President, this amendment 
represents a common sense step in the right direction. It is sorely 
needed and I encourage all members to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. May I inquire how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair.
  I would like to respond to a few things that have been stated here 
about what we are talking about and what we are not talking about in 
the final minutes that I have in this debate.
  No. 1 is, what we are talking about is separate barracks during basic 
training--separate barracks during basic training. We are not talking 
about further training; we are not talking about deployment, any of 
those issues that are being raised as a smokescreen by others. We are 
not talking about separation. We are talking about the 9 weeks of basic 
training, separate barracks.
  All right, that is No. 1. No. 2 is we are also talking about limited 
access by trainers of the opposite sex after hours. We have had 
instances--we have had court-martials. Even this month we have had a 
court-martial take place in the Navy involving that type of situation.
  So what we are saying is if you are of the opposite gender, you can't 
go into the facility where the other gender is staying after hours 
other than in emergency cases.
  Those are the two things we are talking about. Those are intimate 
issues and they have eminent common sense about them, plus I might add 
being backed up by the Kassebaum-Baker commission, the Army survey that 
I showed, the CRS study that I also cited earlier.
  So I have three studies on this point as well as making what 
basically most people would say is pretty much common sense about this 
issue. We are not talking about separate training. Senator Byrd was 
going to have an amendment along that line, and I think he has some 
wisdom with it, but we are not talking about that sort of issue.
  Some are saying, look, we don't have a problem. Well, I cited to you 
the court-martial that has taken place at the Great Lakes Navy basic 
training facility, and I read the quotes from some of the people 
involved in that horrible instance as to what took place there.
  I would also cite to you some other problem areas. We did some 
surveying of the military on these issues. We asked them about official 
reprimands in instances in the last 12 months involving trainers and 
trainees. The Army gave us 53 that were involved in article 15s over 
the last 2 years involving trainers and trainees. That is a lot that 
were involved in this type of situation.
  Also I want to cite--and there was one thing the Senator from 
Michigan cited saying that this isn't a particular problem. We have got 
those in that particular case, and the services do not want to do this. 
Well, the Army and Navy and the Air Force may not. The Marines think 
that separate training and separate barracks is the way to go and they 
are having fewer instances that they are reporting.
  I want to cite another study. This is the Department of Defense 1995 
sexual harassment study. This one is amazing if you look at it. They 
are talking about the progress taking place. In 1995, they surveyed 
their personnel and 55 percent of the women in the Army, 55 percent of 
the women surveyed in this Department of Defense study said they had 
some type of sexual harassment taking place within the last year. 
Listen to how this breaks down. Actual or attempted rape or assault, 4 
percent of the women surveyed said that this had happened to them; 
pressure for sexual favors, 11 percent; touching or cornering, 29 
percent.

  This is the 1995 Department of Defense sexual harassment study. We 
don't have a problem? We have a significant problem taking place.
  I have other studies to cite here, but what I want to get to with 
this is to say that we have a current and present problem and danger 
involved in this situation. We are talking about an amendment of very 
limited scope.
  We can do studies until we find one that comes out the way we want it 
to come out, and I suppose if we keep appointing people that may 
happen. The commission that has been appointed has a much broader 
purview than this narrow issue of the barracks.
  It says the duties of the commission shall be to:

       Review the current practices of the Armed Forces, relevant 
     studies, and private sector training concepts pertaining to 
     gender-integrated training.

  OK, but it also says:

       Review the laws, regulations, policies, directives, and 
     practices that govern personal relationships between men and 
     women in the Armed Forces and personal relationships between 
     members of the Armed Forces and nonmilitary personnel of the 
     opposite sex.

  That is broader than just the barracks during basic training we are 
talking about.

       Assess the extent to which the laws, regulations, policies, 
     and directives have been applied consistently throughout the 
     Armed Forces without regard to the Armed Force, grade, or 
     rank of the individuals involved.

  Whether or not everybody is being reviewed similarly:

       Examine the experiences, policies, and practices of the 
     Armed Forces of other industrialized nations regarding 
     gender-integrated training.

  Training: We are not talking about training here. We are just talking 
about barracks during basic training.
  My point is that some would say we have appointed this commission and 
to not let it go on through; by doing this, that we are overruling the 
commission. This is a very broad-based commission. We have a clear and 
present problem in basic training that just earlier this month on June 
5 we have a court-martial taking place at the Navy training grounds, 
and we have got 53 instances being reported in the last 2 years by the 
Army--53 official reprimands.
  I get calls to my office by people asking to be released from the 
military because of sexual harassment that has happened to them in 
basic training.
  Do we need another year to study this? Do we need another year to 
contemplate this?
  My own staff then goes down to Fort Jackson to look at the situation 
because there is an issue regarding the

[[Page S6980]]

common area that is involved here: Let's just put them in the same 
facility, but we will put them on different floors or separate, 
different wings out here, but then we have a common area together.
  My own staff was told about, well, there was sexual activities taking 
place, on the fire escape and in the telephone booth. Where there is a 
will there is a way, I guess. But my point is, if you are going to put 
young 18-year-old recruits in the same place in a pressurized 
environment and you are going to provide some chances, this is going to 
happen.
  What we are saying is let's just put them in separate facilities by 
2001. Let's give it some time, common sense, so we can get this put 
into place, and that is specifically and only what we are talking 
about. And let's limit the supervisors, the trainers being able to go 
into the trainees' facilities of the opposite sex after hours other 
than for emergency cases because we have had some really horrible 
instances taking place there.

  So, Mr. President, I think if you look at the preponderance of 
evidence that is here with all the studies that have been done, we can 
do yet another one, and if this one doesn't come out the way we want, I 
suppose we may do yet another one, but we have enough. We have a real 
problem today--and this is going to really catch up with us--of 
recruits coming into the military.
  This is a simple proposal, a simple matter. We don't need to put it 
off for another commission to study this. The evidence is overwhelming 
and the findings have been overwhelming to date.
  So with that, Mr. President, I would ask my colleagues to vote 
against the Snowe amendment. Let us have a vote on this very simple 
issue of separate barracks and not having members of the opposite sex 
in the quarters after hours other than for emergency cases. That is all 
that we are asking for in this particular amendment.
  So please vote no on the Snowe amendment so we can put the Kassebaum 
commission into place.
  With that, Mr. President, I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two-and-a-half minutes.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to be very magnanimous and 
yield 2 minutes to somebody who absolutely disagrees with me on this 
amendment, who I think is absolutely wrong, but I want to be collegial 
with my colleagues and recognize and yield 2 minutes to the Senator 
from Michigan.
  I would like 30 seconds at the end in case I need to say something.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think the Senator has used the 2 minutes, but I 
appreciate it. I will return the favor.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank our colleague from Kansas, and I yield the 2 
minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 2 minutes 
and the Senator from Kansas 30 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the most important issues 
involving training in the military is the issue of gender integrated 
training.
  Women have been serving with distinction in our military forces for 
decades, but their opportunities have grown immensely in the past 
decade. Unfortunately, the recent sexual harassment scandals in the 
military have been used by some to oppose the integrated training of 
men and women in the military and to urge a return to separate 
training. This approach would be a serious mistake.
  In light of the expanded roles for women in the military it makes 
sense to continue to integrate all aspects of training except for 
direct combat training. The Services often cite ``train as you fight'' 
as one of their guidelines in preparation for war. Each service trains 
as it will fight. The Marines and Army direct ground combat units 
conduct gender segregated basic training. For all other non-direct 
ground combat roles, the services conduct gender integrated training. 
This is how they will fight.
  Some ask, why should basic training be any different? But basic 
training is where new recruits learn basic military values. Integrated 
initial training makes sense. They will train and fight as an 
integrated force for their entire military careers. There is no reason 
why they should not begin to do so as early as possible. Doing so 
increases the readiness of all our military forces.
  Opponents also argue for separate barracks for men and women during 
training. But, as anyone who has served in the military knows, military 
training does not end on the drill field or in the classroom. A great 
deal of unit cohesion is built during time spent in the barracks 
studying or preparing for the next day's training. Separate barracks 
would further complicate the commanders' task and make it more 
difficult to exercise the leadership that guarantees the readiness of 
the military unit.
  The barracks now used in basic training by the services all have 
independent sleeping areas and restrooms for men and women. Each of 
these areas has separate entrances. There are alarms on doors and walls 
around living areas, which are locked at night. Moreover, there is 
around-the-clock supervision by the chain of command. There is no doubt 
that we have safe and secure barracks. Wasting over $150 million in new 
construction for separate barracks that are not needed and are no more 
secure makes no sense.
  The critics of gender integrated training cite recent cases of sexual 
harassment as a demonstration of the need to segregate men and women 
during basic training. But almost none of the instances of sexual 
harassment or sexual misconduct were committed by recruits on recruits, 
but by drill instructors on recruits.
  That kind of sexual harassment indicates poor leadership, not a 
gender integration problem in training. All of the Services acknowledge 
the importance of improving the quality of recruit training. Commanders 
and drill instructors will exercise closer supervision over all 
recruits. That is the best way to eliminate these abuses and ensure the 
high level of readiness required for our national defense.
  We have come a long way toward full acceptance of women in the 
military. But more needs to be done to ensure that the progress goes 
forward in the coming years. Women will not continue to serve in a 
military which discriminates against them. I look forward to a day when 
more policies and programs affecting service members are implemented 
without regard to gender. Women in the military deserve no less.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Kansas has 30 seconds.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I wish to simply respond to the statements of the 
Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Massachusetts. They are 
simply not true. We have the June 5 case taking place at the Navy train 
facility, a court-martial because of fraternization, harassment, sexual 
activity by the trainer with trainees involved in this.
  Separate barracks: Keep the trainers out afterhours. This makes 
sense, and I would ask my colleagues to vote against the Snowe 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on the second-degree amendment offered by the Senator 
from Maine.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment offered by the Senator from Maine.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is 
absent because of illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 37, as follows:

[[Page S6981]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thompson
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Glenn
     Helms
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Specter
  The amendment (No. 2979) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 2978, as Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Is there further debate on the 
first-degree Brownback amendment numbered 2978, as amended? If not, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2978), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the 
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond.
  The report accompanying this legislation states that the committee 
has included $191.4 million for three ``standard'' C-130J aircraft (in 
addition to funding for two other C-130J variants). The 
Administration's budget request included funding for one standard C-
130J for the active Air Force. Thus, the committee added two standard 
C-130Js to the budget.
  The report further states that these two standard C-130J aircraft 
added by this bill are designated for Reserve Component Modernization. 
However, the report appears not to include a designation for the 
requested C-130J. I would like to ask the Chairman, does the committee 
intend that all three of the standard C-130J aircraft in this bill--not 
simply the two added to the request--are designated for the Air 
National Guard?
  Mr. THURMOND. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to compliment the Chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee on his very skillful handling of this 
important legislation and for his statesmanlike approach to some 
serious and troubling budget issues in this year's defense budget.
  This year the defense budget is once again confronted with a serious 
mismatch between the DoD/OMB and the CBO estimates of the outlays 
needed to execute the programs in the budget. CBO's estimate was $3.7 
billion higher than OMB and DoD's estimate.
  Becuase the President's proposed defense budget was right up against 
the discretionary spending caps adopted in the Bipartisan Budget 
Agreement, compensating for CBO scoring would require large reductions 
in manpower, procurement, or readiness, or all three. Cuts like that 
are simply not acceptable.
  Thanks in large part to the cooperation we received from the Chairman 
of the Armed Services Committee and of the Appropriations Committee, 
from CBO and from OMB, we were able to devise a solution to much of the 
problem. The solution has three parts:
  First, Congress would legislate policies recommended by the 
Administration to better manage cash in DoD's Working Capital Funds. 
This would lower fiscal year 1999 outlays by $1.3 billion.
  Second, Congress would agree to changes in two classified accounts in 
the Air Force budget that would lower 1999 outlays by $700 million.
  Third, Congress would enact asset sales amounting to roughly $700 
million.
  The Chairmen of the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations 
Committee have assured me that taken together these actions reduce the 
1999 outlay shortage to manageable dimensions and help avoid the 
negative effect on readiness or modernization that was feared.
  Mr. President, I have reviewed the text of the 1999 Defense 
Authorization bill, and I believe we are within reach of the solution. 
However, I have a concern.
  The cash management provisions of DoD's Working Capital Funds 
contains a waiver clause for the Secretary of Defense that is very 
broad. I am concerned that some in the Department may find this waiver 
authority too tempting to resist and will use up the outlays intended 
to be left in the cash reserves of the Working Capital Funds. Unless 
there are truly extraordinary and compelling reasons that are not now 
apparent to us, I believe it would be a very serious mistake to use the 
available waiver authority. Doing so would certainly destroy the 
cooperation and trust that has been built up this year with the Defense 
Department and OMB as we worked together to address this outlay 
problem.
  Assuming there is no unwarranted use of the waiver authority granted 
in the amendment, I believe we can say we have bridged this problem 
this year. Next year, I very strongly hope we will receive more 
accurate outlay estimates from those who have in the past tended to 
underestimate them. It is unacceptable to receive such miscounts of 
outlays and then to be told that for Congress to adopt more accurate 
estimates, the readiness and modernization of our Armed Forces must be 
reduced. I hope this is the last time we are forced to address this 
issue.
  Mr. WARNER. Momentarily, as acting leader, I will address the Senate.
  On behalf of Senator Lott, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Inhofe now be recognized to offer an amendment relative to BRAC and 
there be 30 minutes equally divided for debate tonight. Following that 
debate, the amendment be laid aside. I further ask that Senator Harkin 
then be recognized to offer an amendment relative to VA health care, 
and there be 1 hour of debate equally divided for debate tonight, and 
the amendment then be laid aside.
  I further ask that, at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, Senator Wellstone be 
recognized to offer an amendment relative to DOD schools and there be 
30 minutes equally divided; following the conclusion or yielding back 
of time, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the amendment, 
with no amendments in order prior to the vote.
  I further ask that, following the disposition of the Wellstone 
amendment, the Senate resume the Inhofe amendment for 10 minutes of 
closing remarks, to be equally divided, and the vote then occur on or 
in relation to the Inhofe amendment, with no amendments in order prior 
to the vote.
  I further ask that, following the vote on or in relation to the 
Inhofe amendment, there be 10 minutes of debate on the Harkin 
amendment, and the vote then occur on or in relation to the Harkin 
amendment, with no amendments in order prior to the vote.
  Is there any objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I didn't quite hear all 
that, but there has always been sort of a comity in the Senate where we 
alternate from side to side on amendments. It seems to me the last 
couple of amendments have been on the other side. It would seem to be 
only logical that the next amendment be on this side.
  I ask the Senator if we couldn't do that. I only need about 15 
minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask the Senator to at least consider that the amendment 
I have to offer is not a Republican

[[Page S6982]]

amendment. We have just as many Democrats as Republicans. I have been 
waiting for 6\1/2\ hours to take it up. It will be very short. We have 
agreed to a time agreement, and we will not even take that much time.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have a time agreement also, and I have been waiting all 
day. I will take only about 15 minutes on mine.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have been on the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. We usually go back and forth on these things.
  Mr. WARNER. I wonder if at this point the two Senators could sort 
this out in such a way that we could proceed tonight. I understand the 
Senator from Arizona also desires some time, 5 minutes on the Inhofe 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. If we reduce both debates tonight to 20 minutes, that 
might resolve this problem.
  Mr. INHOFE. If I can go first, I am agreeable to that.
  Mr. HARKIN. That would put you on until just before 9 o'clock. That 
would put me up about 9 o'clock. I still don't know why we can't go 
back and forth like we have always done in the past.
  Mr. WARNER. I have to say to the Senator, I was not in the chair as 
the manager at the time the agreement was drawn.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I want to ask one 
clarification. I understand this unanimous consent would preclude 
second-degree amendments at any time?
  Mr. WARNER. Prior to the vote, that is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. At any time prior to?
  Mr. WARNER. Any time prior to the vote.
  Mr. President, I repeat the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have a further announcement for 
Senators. For the information of all Senators, there will be no further 
votes tonight. Several Members have agreed to remain tonight to debate 
other amendments, and there will be three votes occurring at 10 a.m., 
with a few minutes debate between the second and third votes.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2981

 (Purpose: To modify the restrictions on the general authority of the 
Department of Defense regarding the closure and realignment of military 
 installations, to express the sense of the Congress on further rounds 
       of such closures and realignments, and for other purposes)

  Mr. INHOFE. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for himself and Mr. 
     Dorgan, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lott, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Bennett, Mr. 
     Smith of New Hampshire, Ms. Collins, Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
     Sessions, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Conrad and Mr. 
     Cleland, proposes an amendment numbered 2981.

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

     SEC.   . MODIFICATION OF LIMITATIONS ON GENERAL AUTHORITY 
                   RELATING TO BASE CLOSURES AND REALIGNMENTS.

       (a) Actions Covered by Notice and Wait Procedures.--
     Subsection (a) of section 2687 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking out paragraphs (1) and (2) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following new paragraphs (1) 
     and (2):
       ``(1) the closure of any military installation at which at 
     least 225 civilian personal are authorized to be employed;
       ``(2) any realignment with respect to a military 
     installation referred to in paragraph (1) if such realignment 
     will result in an aggregate reduction in the number of 
     civilian personnel authorized to be employed at such military 
     installation during the fiscal year in which notice of such 
     realignment is submitted to Congress under subsection (b) 
     equal to or greater than--
       ``(A) 750 such civilian personnel; or
       ``(B) the number equal to 40 percent of the total number of 
     civilian personnel authorized to be employed at such military 
     installation at the beginning of such fiscal year; or''.
       (b) Definitions.--Subsection (e) of that section is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``(including a 
     consolidation)'' after ``any action''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) The term `closure' includes any action to inactivate 
     or abandon a military installation or to transfer a military 
     installation to caretaker status.''.

     SEC.   . PROHIBITION ON CLOSURE OF A BASE WITHIN FOUR YEARS 
                   AFTER A REALIGNMENT OF THE BASE.

       (a) Prohibition.--(1) Chapter 159 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2687 the 
     following:

     Sec. 2688. Base closures and realignments: closure prohibited 
       within four years after realignment in certain cases

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no action may be taken, and no funds appropriated or 
     otherwise available to the Department of Defense may be 
     obligated or expended, to effect or implement the closure of 
     a military installation within 4 years after the completion 
     of a realignment of the installation that, alone or with 
     other causes, reduced the number of civilian personnel 
     employed at that installation below 225.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `military 
     installation', `civilian personnel', and `realignment' have 
     the meanings given such terms in section 2687(e) of this 
     title.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item related to section 
     2687 the following:

``2688. Base closures and realignments: closure prohibited within four 
              years after realignment in certain cases.''.

       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2687(a) of such title is 
     amended by inserting ``(other than section 2688 of this 
     title)'' after ``Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law''.

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FURTHER ROUNDS OF BASE 
                   CLOSURES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) While the Department of Defense has proposed further 
     rounds of base closures, there is no need to authorize in 
     1998 a new base closure commission that would not begin its 
     work until three years from now, in 2001;
       (2) While the Department of Defense has submitted a report 
     to the Congress in response to Section 2824 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, that report--
       (A) based its estimates of the costs and savings of 
     previous base closure rounds on data that the General 
     Accounting Office has described as ``inconsistent'', 
     ``unreliable'' and ``incomplete'';
       (B) failed to demonstrate that the Defense Department is 
     working effectively to improve its ability to track base 
     closure costs and savings resulting from the 1993 and 1995 
     base closure rounds, which are ongoing;
       (C) modeled the savings to be achieved as a result of 
     further base closure rounds on the 1993 and 1995 rounds, 
     which are as yet incomplete and on which the Department's 
     information is faulty; and
       (D) projected that base closure rounds in 2001 and 2005 
     would not produce substantial savings until 2008, a decade 
     after the federal government will have achieved unified 
     budget balance, and 5 years beyond the planning period for 
     the current congressional budget and Future Years Defense 
     Plan;
       (3) Section 2824 required that the Congressional Budget 
     Office and the General Accounting Office review the Defense 
     Department's report, and--
       (A) The General Accounting Office stated on May 1 that ``we 
     are now conducting our analysis to be able to report any 
     limitations that may exist in the required level of detail. . 
     . . [W]e are awaiting some supporting documentation from the 
     military services to help us finish assessing the report's 
     information.'';
       (B) The Congressional Budget Office stated on May 1 that 
     its review is ongoing, and that ``it is important that CBO 
     take the time necessary to provide a thoughtful and accurate 
     evaluation of DoD's report, rather than issue a preliminary 
     and potentially inaccurate assessment.'';
       (4) The Congressional Budget Office recommended that ``The 
     Congress could consider authorizing an additional round of 
     base closures if the Department of Defense believes that 
     there is a surplus of military capacity after all rounds of 
     BRAC have been carried out. That consideration, however, 
     should follow an interval during which DoD and independent 
     analysts examine the actual impact of the measures that have 
     been taken thus far.''
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that:
       (1) Congress should not authorize further rounds of base 
     closures and realignments until all actions authorized by the 
     Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 are 
     completed; and
       (2) The Department of Defense should submit forthwith to 
     the Congress the report required by Section 2815 of Public 
     Law 103-337, analyzing the effects of base closures and 
     realignments on the ability of the Armed Forces to 
     remobilize, describing the military construction projects 
     needed to facilitate such remobilization, and discussing the 
     assets, such as air space, that would be difficult to 
     reacquire in the event of such remobilization.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's understanding that the time 
on both amendments has now been reduced to 20 minutes.

[[Page S6983]]

  Mr. INHOFE. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I did not agree to that. I am sorry, that 
had to do with something else. I still reserve the amount of time that 
was requested.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the original order, the Senator from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, gets 30 minutes, equally divided, and the Senator 
from Iowa, Senator Harkin, gets 1 hour, equally divided. That is the 
original order.
  The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. I think I probably will voluntarily cut this down. It 
depends on who shows up and wants to be heard.
  Mr. President, as I have said in response to the comment by the 
Senator from Iowa, this is not really a Republican amendment. We have, 
certainly, Senator Daschle, Senator Dorgan, Senator Cleland, Senator 
Conrad, and many Democrats who are supporting this amendment.
  The need for this amendment came up when several comments were made 
by members of the administration, primarily Acting Secretary Peters of 
the Air Force, making statements that, ``We don't care whether or not 
we are authorized to have further BRAC rounds, we are going to go ahead 
and close bases anyway.''
  Later in this discussion, I will actually offer some of the quotes 
that were made. Right now, I will merely explain what this amendment 
does. It does essentially five things.
  First of all, the current language, in order for a military facility 
to be closed without Congress' consent, has a threshold of 300 civilian 
employees. Let me stress, that is civilian employees, not military 
employees. This bill will reduce that number to 225.
  Now, my original bill would have reduced it to 150. I still like that 
better. However, I was willing to accommodate the concerns of several 
Democrats and other people who wanted to have 225. The effect of this 
would mean that if they tried to close a military base, they could not 
do it without our consent unless that base had more than 225 civilian 
employees.
  No. 2, in the event that realignment became the desire of the 
services--Department of Defense--that they could not do it if there 
were as many as 750 civilian positions or 40 percent of the total 
civilians authorized to be employed.
  The current language has a threshold of 1,000 civilian employees at 
50 percent of the total civilians authorized to be employed. So this 
again is dropping that down a modest amount, by approximately 25 
percent.
  No. 3, we clarify the definition of closure. The reason we feel this 
is necessary is that there have been statements made like, ``We will 
just transfer it to a caretaker status, or a state of inaction or 
abandonment.'' What we are doing is expanding the definition in the law 
of closure to include these statements, so that someone cannot do this 
and circumvent the closure requirements by saying we are not closing, 
we are just abandoning or putting it into a state of inaction.
  On this, I pause at this point and say, if you stop and think about 
every community in America that might have some type of a facility, 
they would not know, they would not be prepared in advance as to 
whether or not somebody is going to try to make it inactive or put it 
into caretaker status. We want to be straightforward and say if you are 
going to close it, you are going to close it--using those terms.
  No. 4, we will add a provision that requires a waiting period of 4 
years after a realignment before a base could be closed, if that 
realignment drops the civilian workforce below the new threshold of 225 
civilians. Our concern here is that this can be circumvented and we 
could be left out of the loop as the U.S. Senate if they were able to 
take it one step at a time and say, fine, we are going to go ahead and 
realign, and next week we will come and realign some more and have the 
effect of closing a base entirely, regardless of the number of 
employees, if they are willing to do that. This would preclude that.
  Lastly, it is the sense of the Senate that there is no need to 
reauthorize for the year 2001 in this 1998 authorization bill. There is 
no reason in the world that we can't have more time to consider this 
and to see how current law works and maybe address this again in the 
1999 authorization bill. It would not make any difference at all; it 
would still be the year 2001.
  These are essentially the changes in the current law that this 
amendment would offer.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. I don't have any requests for time on my side.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment sends the wrong message to 
every single person in the Defense Department. That message is: Do as I 
say, not as I do. We are telling the Department of Defense to be more 
efficient, to adopt better business practices, to do more with less, to 
go faster in reshaping the military for the threats of the 21st 
century.
  We are pushing the DOD to have their inventory maintained more 
efficiently, to cut acquisition personnel, cut headquarters personnel, 
cut the number of ships and aircraft and combat troops. But, 
apparently, the military forces of the future that some colleagues have 
in mind will cut equipment, people, and supplies, but leave all the 
empty buildings standing to impress people.
  This amendment tells our soldiers that despite what we say, our real 
priority would be to protect our turf back home, instead of protecting 
the well-being of our future soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. 
Every single top uniformed military and civilian military have told us 
that the reality is that the money we spend maintaining more bases than 
we need is money that we can't spend buying our troops the things that 
they do need.
  You know, it is one thing not to authorize some more BRAC rounds, and 
it is something altogether different to make even an alignment that is 
currently possible without BRAC, to make that more difficult. This 
amendment takes us in exactly the wrong direction. It will make 
reductions more difficult than they are now.
  I happen to support BRAC rounds, but that is not the issue here. The 
issue here isn't whether we add a round or two rounds of BRAC, as much 
as that may be necessary in the judgment of some of us; the issue here 
is whether or not we make it more difficult to realign facilities that 
are currently realignable without BRAC. This amendment will make it 
more difficult.
  If this amendment is adopted, it is either going to kill this bill, 
or if the President does sign a bill that includes this provision--
which is a very uncertain prospect--it is going to put a very large 
wrench into the Defense Department's gears and bring the Defense 
Department's efforts to make its base structure more rational and 
efficient to a grinding halt.
  The Secretary and Deputy Secretary are trying to move the Defense 
Department into the 21st century. This amendment is trying to set the 
Defense Department in concrete.
  This is what Secretary Cohen wrote to Chairman Thurmond and me on 
June 22:

       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express the Department 
     of Defense's strong opposition to an amendment to the fiscal 
     year 1999 Defense Authorization Bill that has been proposed 
     by Senators Inhofe and Dorgan. If enacted, this amendment 
     would further restrict the Department's already limited 
     ability to adjust the size and composition of its base 
     structure. The Department will have views on other provisions 
     in the Authorization Bill as well, but I want to draw your 
     attention to this particular amendment before the Senate 
     completes consideration of your bill.
       The Department can undertake closures and realignments only 
     after first complying with the requirements of 10 USC 2687. 
     As a practical matter, section 2687 greatly restricts the 
     Department for taking any action to reduce base capacity at 
     installations with more than 300 civilians authorized. The 
     amendment being proposed would extend the application of 
     section 2687 to an even greater number of installations.
       This proposal would seriously undermine my capacity to 
     manage the Department of Defense. Even after eight years of 
     serious attention to the problem, we still have more 
     infrastructure than we need to support our forces. Operating 
     and maintaining a base structure that is larger than 
     necessary has broad, adverse consequences for our military 
     forces. It diverts resources that are critical

[[Page S6984]]

     to maintaining readiness and funding a robust modernization 
     program. It spreads a limited amount of operation and 
     maintenance funding too thinly across DoD's facilities, 
     degrading the quality of life and operational support on 
     which readiness depends. It prevents us from adapting our 
     infrastructure to keep pace with the operational and 
     technical innovations that are at the cornerstone of our 
     strategy for the 21st century. In short, this amendment would 
     be a step backward that would harm our long-term security by 
     protecting unnecessary infrastructure.
       I urge you to oppose the Inhofe/Dorgan amendment during 
     floor consideration of the Authorization Bill. Its passage 
     would put the entire bill at risk. Congress has given me the 
     responsibility to organize and manage the Department's 
     operations efficiently. I need to preserve my existing 
     authority to fulfill that responsibility.

  Mr. President, I think all of us who are on the Armed Services 
Committee--including my friend who is proposing this amendment--are 
very sensitive to that question. We want an authorization bill, we want 
to get an authorization bill to the President, and we want him to sign 
an authorization bill. The Secretary of Defense is telling us in this 
letter, in his words, that passage of this amendment would ``put the 
entire bill at risk.''
  There are many ways in which this amendment would make it more 
difficult for the Defense Department to realign bases that are 
currently realignable. It does that by changing, reducing the number of 
civilians at a base that would require notification to Congress, or 
would require realignment action by a base closing commission. This 
amendment lowers the threshold for any base with 300 people to a base 
with 225 civilians. Even though the current definition of 300 captures 
all of our major installations, this amendment would go deeper. This 
amendment would make it more difficult for the Secretary of Defense to 
make the kind of efficiencies that we are demanding everywhere else in 
the defense budget.
  So I hope this amendment will be rejected. It is a step in the wrong 
direction. If we don't have what, in my judgment, is the courage to 
adopt an additional round or two rounds of BRAC--of Base Closing 
Commission--with the power to make a recommendation to us and the 
President, and a certainty that that would be voted on--if we don't 
have the courage to do that because it will put at risk facilities in 
each of our States, for heaven's sake, we should not go backwards, dig 
ourselves into a deeper hole, require lesser efficiencies instead of 
greater efficiencies. We should not set the Department of Defense in 
deeper concrete, thicker concrete than it already is in. So I hope that 
this amendment will be rejected.
  I thank our colleague, Senator Inhofe, for a number of things.
  One is his willingness to raise this amendment tonight, even though 
it means there will be less time tomorrow for us to debate this 
amendment. His willingness to offer this amendment tonight is very 
courteous to all of us who are trying to move this bill. I thank him 
for that courtesy, and many other courtesies which he has extended.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the 
remarks of the distinguished Senator from Michigan. It has been a very 
helpful step to enable us to keep moving here tonight.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Senate Armed Services Committee 
expressed its views regarding base closure when it voted 10 to 8 
against an amendment that would have authorized additional base closure 
rounds. I fully support that decision although I have an open mind on 
future legislation, especially if the Administration makes a better 
case for additional rounds and the rounds are scheduled after the 
current base closure activities are completed.
  In regard to the amendment before us, I believe it will have little 
if any impact on whether or not we will close additional bases. The 
amendment is in reaction to the Department's threat to close bases by 
attriting personnel below the 300 threshold set by section 2687 of 
title 10. While I do not believe that this is an idle threat, reducing 
the threshold to 225 personnel will have little or no impact.
  To close or realign bases under section 2687, the Department of 
Defense must notify Congress as part of its request for authorization 
of appropriations and must provide the Congress an evaluation of 
fiscal, local economic, budgetary, environmental, strategic, and 
operational consequences of proposed closures and realignments. One of 
the most important drawbacks to the section 2687 process is the 
requirement to complete a full environmental study under the provisions 
of the National Environmental Policy Act before a closure or 
realignment decision is made and sent to Congress. While such studies 
are under way, usually for a period of 12 to 18 months, litigation is 
likely to arise, effectively derailing the proposed closure and 
realignment. Additionally, individual actions can be thwarted by 
withholding the appropriation of funds to execute a closure or 
realignment. Section 2687 has effectively prevented DoD from reducing 
its infrastructure through closures or realignments at any of its 
significant facilities.
  Mr. President, this legislation is unnecessary and I urge the Senate 
to reject the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter from the BENS Tail-to-Tooth Commission, and a letter from 
Taxpayers for Common Sense.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Bens Tail-To-Tooth Commission,

                                                    June 10, 1998.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond: We are writing to express our strong 
     opposition to the Dorgan-Inhofe Amendment to the FY1999 
     Defense Authorization bill. This amendment severely hampers 
     the Pentagon's ability to rationally manage its military 
     bases and personnel.
       As members of the BENS Tail-to-Tooth Commission, we all 
     share a commitment to reforming the Department of Defense so 
     that we can invest savings in new procurement and enhancing 
     the readiness of our military forces. the Senate is on record 
     in support of these goals; yet, the Dorgan-Inhofe amendment 
     moves us in the opposite direction. By locking in the status 
     quo, this proposal prevents the Pentagon from making rational 
     business decision that will save money, and most importantly, 
     improve the support provided to service members.
       Under this plan, the Pentagon is required to prepare costly 
     and time consuming impact statements when it proposes to move 
     as few as ten civilian employees. It also provides unfair 
     protection to numerous facilities that would be declared off 
     limits should be the Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
     be authorized in the future.
       Passage of the Dorgan-Inhofe amendment would be a major 
     blow to the cause of smart management. the cost to taxpayers, 
     and most important, to the troops will be significant. We 
     urge you to oppose this ill-conceived proposal.
           Sincerely,
         Admiral Stanley R. Arthur, USN (Ret.); Mr. Raphael 
           Benaroya; Mr. Denis A. Bovin; the Honorable Howard H. 
           Callaway; the Honorable Frank C. Carlucci; Ms. Maryles 
           V. Casto; Mr. Michael S. Fields; the Honorable Sidney 
           Harman; Dr. Anita K. Jones; the Honorable James R. 
           Jones; Mr. James V. Kimsey; Admiral Wesley McDonald, 
           USN (Ret.); Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, USAF (Ret.); Ms. 
           Ann McLaughlin; General Merrill A. McPeak, USAF (Ret.); 
           General Thomas Moorman, USAF (Ret.); Mr. John P. 
           Morgridge; Mr. William F. Murdy; Admiral William A. 
           Owens, USN (Ret.); the Honorable William J. Perry; Mr. 
           William J. Rouhana, Jr.; Admiral William D. Smith, USN 
           (Ret.); General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.) and Mr. 
           Josh S. Weston.
                                  ____



   oppose dorgan/inhofe amendment to make it harder to realign small 
                             military bases

       Dear Senator: When the Senate considers S. 2057, the Fiscal 
     Year 1999 Defense Authorization Bill, we urge you to vote 
     against the Dorgan/Inhofe Amendment, which would make it more 
     difficult to realign and consolidate small military 
     installations. The amendment would require Department of 
     Defense (DoD) to waste money that could otherwise be used to 
     reduce overall defense spending or pay for improved readiness 
     or weapons procurement. The amendment would be a disservice 
     to both taxpayers and soldiers.
       Currently, the law restricts DoD's ability to close bases 
     that have authorizations for 300 or more civilians. The law 
     also restricts realignments at installations with over 300 
     civilians authorized when the realignment involves the 
     reduction or relocation of more than fifty percent of 
     civilians authorized. The amendment expands the scope of the 
     restrictions by decreasing the 300 person threshold to 225 
     and restricting realignments

[[Page S6985]]

     at all installations if such action affects 40 percent or 
     more of the civilians authorized.
       To illustrate, an installation as few as ten civilians 
     could not realign more than three employee positions without: 
     (1) notifying Congress of the proposed action as part of 
     DoD's request for defense authorizations; (2) providing 
     Congress with an evaluation of the fiscal, local economic, 
     budgetary and environmental impact, strategic, and 
     operational consequences of proposed closures and 
     realignments; (3) conducting a full environmental study 
     before the proposal is sent to Congress; and (4) then waiting 
     30 legislative days or 60 calendar after notifying Congress 
     before executing the realignment.
       There is no need to compel the DoD to maintain Cold War 
     infrastructures now that the Cold War has ended. The proposed 
     amendment would make it all but impossible for the DoD to 
     reorganize, consolidate, or close unnecessary small bases. 
     Every excessive base, airfield, depot and station undermines 
     U.S. national security and wastes taxpayer money. We urge you 
     to allow DoD to retain one of the tools it needs to provide 
     the American people with the best possible defense our tax 
     dollars can buy. Vote ``NO'' to the Dorgan/Inhofe Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ralph DeGennaro,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have a few comments.
  Ironically, I was the author of the last base closure legislation. I 
saw right here just a day or so ago Senator Dixon of Illinois. He was 
my other principal author of that resolution.
  I think it is absolutely essential that the United States reduce its 
infrastructure and enable the Secretary today and the Secretaries of 
Defense thereafter to husband those funds from the reduction as best 
they can and channel those needed dollars into readiness and 
modernization, and all types of things that have a much, much higher 
priority than so much of the excess that we now have in the military 
structure.
  The last time we considered this BRAC concept in the committee, I 
voted against it simply because I was so disheartened by some of the 
procedures with regard to certain bases in California, and then 
subsequent revelation of letters from an individual in the Secretary of 
Defense's Office which clearly indicated to me a certain bias.
  We just have to get politics out of this process someday. I am not 
sure when that will be. But as soon as we can come up with some system 
which guarantees elimination of politics, then you can count on the 
Senator from Virginia supporting the BRAC process going forward. In the 
meantime, I register my opposition against my good friend and fellow 
Member.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to clarify the time of the minority 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan controls 5 minutes 
45 seconds. The Senator from Oklahoma has 10 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to yield that 5 minutes to the Senator 
from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I was looking at the amendment. I find it 
to be very interesting.
  First of all, there is a very strongly worded letter from the 
Secretary of Defense:

       Congress has given me the responsibility to organize and 
     manage the Department's operations efficiently. I need to 
     preserve my existing authority to fulfill that 
     responsibility.

  I think Secretary Cohen's words are very important. We should keep 
them in mind.
  Mr. President, I was looking at this amendment. There is a 
prohibition, and there is a sense-of-the-Senate part of the prohibition 
which says, ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no action may 
be taken, and no funds appropriated, or otherwise available to the 
Department of Defense, may be obligated or expended to effect, or 
implement, the closure of a military installation within 4 years after 
the completion of a realignment of the installation.''
  That alone--``. . . or with other causes, reduce the number of 
civilian personnel employed at that installation below 225.''
  I find that an astonishing clause. First of all, civilian employment 
seems to be the case here. Second of all, 4 years?
  Suppose you had an installation--I ask the Senator from Oklahoma--
that had 230 civilian employees, and a contract at the base at the 
Pentagon was canceled, therefore negating the need for the civilian 
workers, and reduce them by 6, down from 230, down to 224. Nothing can 
be done by the Secretary of Defense for 4 years? This is a very unusual 
restraint that we are attempting to impart on the Secretary of Defense.
  Second of all, on the sort of findings here, there is one finding 
that should be leading of all in this; that is, base closures save 
money. That is something that we seem to avoid in this debate--that 
fact. If base closures didn't save money, Mr. President, we made a 
horrible mistake at the end of World War II. Do you know? We made a 
terrible mistake at the end of World War II, because there were 
thousands of bases around America. Do you know what? We closed them. I 
can't imagine how much that must have cost the taxpayer in order to 
close those thousands of bases.
  I sit here and listen to arguments that closing bases costs money. Of 
course it costs money in the short term. You are cleaning up an 
installation. But everybody knows that in the long term it saves money. 
And, unless we do so, you cannot hope to fund the modernization of the 
force and all of the other requirements that we need to meet the 
challenges of the 21st century.
  Mr. President, the Department of Defense estimates that they need to 
close about 50 major facilities and realign 25 others. That is so they 
can match infrastructure to force size and structure.
  I hear many, many hours of debate on the base closing issue, but I 
don't hear the debate that I think is necessary on the floor of the 
Senate in order to maintain our national defense capability--the 
overall question. We are spending less and less on defense. We are 
putting more money into pork barrel projects, and we are allowing a 
base to close. The ultimate result is that you reduce the capability of 
the military force.

  Not only did we turn back in committee. I was sorry that the Senator 
from Virginia chose to vote against the amendment in committee. Not 
only did we vote in committee against any base closing round anytime in 
the near future, but now we are going to restrict even the ability of 
the Secretary of Defense to move people around from one base to another 
in keeping with the changing mission.
  I, frankly, first of all, don't understand the argument that somehow 
closing bases doesn't save money. As I say, if we did, we made a 
terrible mistake after World War II and after the Korean war and after 
the Vietnam war.
  The other thing I don't understand is how we can worry about the 
Congressional Budget Office. The May 1 review is ongoing, and it is for 
the Congressional Budget Office to take the time necessary to provide a 
thoughtful and accurate evaluation of DOD's report rather than issue a 
preliminary and potentially inaccurate assessment.
  The Congressional Budget Office, in a remarkable act of courage, says 
the Congressional Budget Office recommended the Congress could consider 
authorizing an additional round of base closing if the Department of 
Defense believes there is a surplus of military capacity.
  Is there anybody who thinks that the Department of Defense doesn't 
believe there is a surplus of military capacity? After all, BRAC rounds 
have been carried out. This consideration, however, should follow an 
interval during which DOD and independent analysts examine the actual 
impact of the measures that have been taken thus far.
  Mr. President, I oppose the amendment.
  I ask for an additional minute from the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is out of time.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hope someday that we will address the 
issues on this floor--like 11,100 military families on food stamps, 
like men and women who are leaving the military in droves because they 
do not have the equipment to fight with and operate with, like the 
incredible long deployments that we are sending these

[[Page S6986]]

men and women on, like the fact that we are not prepared to meet the 
post-cold-war challenges in any reasonable and responsible way. 
Instead, we seem to spend our time arguing and fighting over a base 
closing. I think, frankly, it is something we ought to get resolved and 
behind us. If we never want to close a base, let's do that. But let's 
not go through this every single year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I have so much respect for 
both the Senator from Arizona and the Senators from Michigan and 
Virginia. I have to say, I am sure the Senator from Arizona would agree 
that there is no stronger proponent for a strong national defense than 
I am. We work hard.
  One of the big problems I have is that we need to look at the overall 
picture. All this talk about base closings is important. I support base 
closures. I made it very clear that we have time on this. If we do not 
have base closures until the year 2001, there is no reason to be 
addressing base closures in this bill.
  Certainly--I also respond to the Senator from Arizona--what he 
referred to was a sense-of-the-Senate portion of this bill. It says, 
``Notwithstanding any other provision of the law,'' no action would be 
taken, and no funds appropriated, and so forth, as you read.
  However, if we should authorize another BRAC process, that would have 
precedence over this and this would not be in effect.
  It is my understanding that the Senator from Washington has a request 
for a couple, 3 minutes and I would like to yield to him, and then I 
will respond to the rest of the comments that have been made.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
3 minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I do not believe that there has been any 
more successful and imaginative policy with respect to our military 
preparedness than the three base-closing rounds that were created by a 
law imagined by the now majority leader of the House of 
Representatives, a major contribution to a rational system--at least, 
Mr. President, a rational system until the last base closure round 
when, in spite of the fact that everyone felt that this issue had been 
taken out of politics, the President of the United States poisoned the 
well by totally politicizing the base-closure process.
  The Senator from Virginia, I think, wisely voted against another 
base-closure process presided over by this President. I agreed with 
that proposition on the basis that once again it would become a part of 
the Presidential campaign in the year 2000, and I will not vote for 
another such process until we can be guaranteed that we will take it 
out of politics.
  I am going to vote for the amendment from the Senator from Oklahoma 
perhaps for the same reason that the Senator from Virginia is going to 
vote against it. I am going to vote to emphasize even more forcefully 
that he has my bitter disappointment in the way in which this important 
process was politicized. And I think we need to send a message, yes, 
even to the Department of Defense that we will not permit that kind of 
thing to happen in the future. And this, it seems to me, is a pretty 
good way to send that message.
  I wish I could have voted this year for another base-closing round. I 
cannot because of what happened during the course of the last 
Presidential election, and I will support the Senator from Oklahoma 
because I think he makes that point even more forcefully.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Washington. I would like to 
inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma controls 6 minutes 
30 seconds.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me clarify something. I 
do support the process. It happens that I was elected to the other body 
in 1986, and that is when Representative Dick Armey from the State of 
Texas came out with the whole idea that we have got to close down some 
of the infrastructure that is no longer needed. We understand that. But 
we can't do it because of the politics that are there.
  So he devised a system, and that system was devised to take the 
politics out of it, and it worked. If there were time, I would read the 
statement he made on the floor of the House of Representatives when he 
found out he had to do something that was bad for his State of Texas, 
and he was willing to do it to save the system, the integrity of the 
system that was designed to take politics out of it.
  Now, as the Senator from Washington said, politics were reinserted, 
and when that happened I think several of us felt we had to ensure that 
did not happen again. And so some of the people, wisely perhaps, said 
that, well, we can do that by waiting until after this President is no 
longer in office, 2001.

  My concern there is I don't know who is going to be the Republican 
nominee or who is going to be the Democratic nominee or who will 
ultimately be the next President of the United States. But if that 
President should be inclined to do so, it would be a tremendous 
temptation for him to use the same politics that President Clinton 
used, because if he doesn't do it, he is not using the full force of 
his office. That is a precedent that has been set. We are trying to 
stop that now.
  I would like to respond to the distinguished Senator from Michigan. 
He made the statement about money being saved. I have supported every 
effort to increase our defense spending. For 15 consecutive years now 
we have actually reduced defense spending when many people a lot 
smarter than I am agreed with the statement that I have made when I 
said that I feel the threat that is facing America is greater today 
than it was even during the cold war because of the nonpredictability, 
the unpredictability of the threat that is out there, the proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction, the fact there are missiles out there 
right now that can reach all the way to any city in the United States 
of America. And it has been recently disclosed by some newspapers that 
there are, in fact, some missiles, some CSS-4 missiles in China that 
are targeted at the United States.
  Now, I anticipate the President will come back and say, I 
accomplished the retargeting of these things. However, if you remember 
the Anthony Lake hearings, we documented the fact that retargeting can 
take place in as short as 3 minutes.
  So anyway, I would say this as far as money being saved by base 
closures. It is bleeding right now. We need to have as much money right 
now in order to try to help our defense system survive. Modernization, 
force strength, quality of life, all of these we are having very 
serious problems with. We have the lowest retention rate right now we 
have had in the history of some of the services, including the Air 
Force. It costs $6 million to put someone in the seat of an F-16 and 
yet we are losing the pilots. I heard an unofficial report today it is 
not a retention of 25 percent. It is now down below 20 percent. That is 
very serious.
  But let's look at where we can really fund the services. The first 
thing I would do, if I were responding to the Senator from Michigan, is 
get us out of Bosnia. Right now, that was supposed to cost us some $1.2 
billion. Now it is over $9 billion direct, and I suggest about twice 
that much money in reality.
  I would also comment that as far as Senator Cohen's statement that 
this might draw a veto, I find it very difficult to believe that a bill 
that is supported by the number of Democrats that are supporting this 
bill, including the minority leader, Tom Daschle, is going to draw a 
veto. This is a threat that is always there. And I would also comment 
that Secretary Cohen, when he was Senator Cohen, would have been right 
up here with me supporting this amendment. And if anyone questions 
that, I can document that.
  Thirdly, when you talk about the courage to do a BRAC, yes, we need 
to do it. We have to first protect the integrity of the system. That is 
what the Senator from Washington is saying, and that is exactly what I 
want to do. I want to reduce more infrastructure. I made that 
statement. I have said that we need to do it professionally and it 
needs to be done out of politics.
  Lastly, when the Senator from Virginia talked about taking politics 
out of the process, I really think the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia gave a pretty good argument for my amendment. So I understand 
that tomorrow

[[Page S6987]]

we are going to have--my time has expired, but we are going to have 10 
minutes equally divided. Senator Dorgan and some other Senators who are 
not here tonight have asked to have that time, which I will yield to 
them tomorrow.
  I yield back the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think that concludes the number of 
speakers who desire to address this amendment. I would simply close by 
saying that I take very seriously the letter by our distinguished 
former colleague, the Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, and I put my 
bottom dollar on his integrity to see that this process would work 
without politics. I really do. I feel strongly about that. So for that 
reason I strongly oppose the amendment.
  Now, Mr. President, I think we go to our distinguished colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Inhofe amendment 
2981 is set aside until tomorrow.
  Mr. WARNER. Set aside pursuant to the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the order.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. And the Senator from Iowa is recognized to 
present an amendment upon which there is 1 hour of debate equally 
divided.


                           Amendment No. 2982

   (Purpose: To authorize a transfer of funds from the Department of 
    Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs for health care.)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk. I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself and Mr. 
     Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 2982.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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 A of title X, add the following:

     SEC.   . TRANSFER TO DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Transfer Required.--The Secretary of Defense is 
     authorized to transfer to the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     $329,000,000 of the amounts appropriated for the Department 
     of Defense pursuant to the authorizations of appropriations 
     in this Act. In the case of any such transfer, the Secretary 
     shall select the funds for transfer, and shall transfer the 
     funds, in a manner that causes the least significant harm to 
     the readiness of the Armed Forces and the quality of life of 
     military personnel and their families.
       (b) Use of Transferred Funds.--Funds transferred pursuant 
     to subsection (a) shall be available for health care programs 
     of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of colleagues, I do not 
intend to take anywhere near a half hour on this on my side, and 
hopefully will yield back a lot of time so we can get out of here at an 
early hour.
  This amendment, pure and simple, is to take some money from the 
Department of Defense and put it into the medical account of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. This amendment would transfer $329 
million specifically from the Department of Defense budget to the 
medical accounts of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Let me be clear 
that what this amendment will do will not increase the amount of money, 
really, going to veterans' medical accounts. It will just keep it level 
in accordance with medical inflation.
  Budgets are about priorities. Tight restrictions on discretionary 
spending over the past several years, and spending caps created last 
year to balance the budget, have forced some tough choices to be made. 
But I ask my colleagues, what greater priority can there be than to 
take care of those who have defended the very right of our country to 
exist? Our veterans have fulfilled the duty they had to serve their 
country. Now it is up to this Congress to fulfill our duty, our 
obligation, our solemn promise to provide for our veterans.
  The needs of our veterans are clear. The aging veteran population, 
rising personnel costs and medical inflation, means that each dollar 
provided for veterans' health care benefits cannot be stretched as far 
as it used to be. The 5-year budget plan assumed no increases for the 
discretionary spending of Veterans Affairs. Let me say that again. The 
5-year budget plan assumed no increases for VA discretionary spending; 
in other words, no taking into account the cost of inflation, and 
especially medical inflation. The well-being of our veterans must not 
be subject to second-class status. Veterans' funding deserves to be 
considered as more than just an afterthought.
  My amendment is supported by many veterans and veterans groups. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
letters of support for my amendment from the Vietnam Veterans of 
America, Incorporated; the Blinded Veterans Association and the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America.


                            Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc.,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 1998.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of Vietnam Veterans of 
     America (VVA) I want to convey our appreciation and support 
     for your proposed amendment to S. 1812, the FY 1999 National 
     Defense Authorization Act, aiming to transfer resources from 
     the Department of Defense (DOD) to the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs (VA) to supplement the medical care budget. VVA has 
     long held the principle belief that the health care and 
     benefits needs of veterans are an ongoing cost of our 
     nation's defense. Your amendment will carry forward with 
     assurance of the Nation's commitment to veterans military 
     service related health care needs.
       VA medical care, as you know, has been plagued by resource 
     limitations for many years and is currently facing flatline 
     budgets for the next several years. The financial wringer has 
     already squeezed out any opportunities to achieve greater 
     efficiencies. Despite promises from Congress and the 
     Administration to the contrary, the ultimate effect is more 
     restrictive access to medical care because of fewer 
     appropriated dollars. Fewer dollars means fewer veterans will 
     be served, pure and simple. The amendment you are offering 
     would help to counter the effects of increasing medical 
     inflation and personnel costs. Without these additional 
     funds, the only possible effect is denial of services to 
     veterans, many of whom are disabled due to their military 
     service.
       Some of your colleagues have argued that attrition of the 
     veterans population through deaths of World War II veterans 
     is an indication that VA needs less money to operate. 
     However, this narrow perspective fails to take into account 
     the rising costs of medical care and more importantly the 
     current demographics of the veteran populations; VA health 
     care users are older and sicker than the overall American 
     public. Vietnam veterans now represent the largest group 
     within the veterans population. Many of the Vietnam veterans 
     and a growing population of Persian Gulf War veterans have 
     complex problems relating to herbicide, chemical and other 
     environmental exposures.
       VVA strongly believes that Congress must commit an adequate 
     annual appropriations to VA medical care programs. Your 
     amendment is a very positive recognition of the current 
     circumstances and needs of America's veterans. Thank you for 
     your initiative to attempt redistributing some DOD funds 
     toward VA medical care.
           Sincerely,
                                               Kelli Willard West,
     Director of Government Relations.
                                  ____



                                 Blinded Veterans Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 1998.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the Blinded Veterans 
     Association (BVA) I am writing to support your proposed 
     amendment to S. 1812, the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1999. This amendment would transfer resources 
     from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs (VA) for medical care for veterans.
       VA medical care is facing a crisis, resulting from the 
     provision of inadequate resources. Appropriations for VA 
     medical care are proposed to be frozen. The Administration's 
     FY 1999 budget for VA medical care requests fewer 
     appropriated dollars, and fewer resources. The amendment that 
     you are offering, along with Senator Wellstone, would provide 
     much needed additional resources, to help counter increases 
     attributable to rising personnel costs and medical inflation. 
     Without these additional dollars, these increases would have 
     to be made up from dollars targeted for the health care needs 
     of veterans.
       The VA Health Care System has already been peared to the 
     bone and we doubt there are any more efficiencies that can be 
     realized to offset inadequate resources. VA Under Secretary 
     for Health, Dr. Kenneth Kizer has recently acknowledged that 
     without additional resources the VA Health Care System could 
     soon ``hit the wall.'' We must maintain this Nation's 
     commitment to veterans, and your amendment is an important 
     step forward in keeping this commitment.
           Sincerely,
                                                Elizabeth R. Carr,
                                           BVA National President.

[[Page S6988]]

     
                                  ____
                                Paralyzed Veterans of America,

                                     Washington, DC, May 13, 1998.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of 
     America (PVA) I am writing to support your proposed amendment 
     to S. 1812, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 1999, which would transfer resources from the Department 
     of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for 
     medical care for veterans.
       VA medical care is facing a crisis, a crisis resulting from 
     the provision of inadequate resources. Appropriations for VA 
     medical care are proposed to be frozen. Indeed, the 
     Administration's FY 1999 budget for VA medical care requests 
     fewer appropriated dollars, and fewer resources. The 
     amendment that you are offering, along with Senator 
     Wellstone, would provide much-needed additional resources, 
     resources to help counter increases attributable to rising 
     personnel costs and medical inflation. Without these 
     additional dollars, these increases would have to be made up 
     from dollars targeted for the health care needs of veterans.
       The VA health care system has already been pared to the 
     bone and we doubt there are any more efficiencies that can be 
     realized to offset inadequate resources. VA Under Secretary 
     for Health Dr. Kenneth Kizer has recently acknowledged that 
     without additional resources the VA health care system could 
     soon ``hit the wall.'' Unfortunately, when the system does 
     hit the wall sick and disabled veterans will feel the effect 
     of the collision. We must maintain this Nation's commitment 
     to veterans, and your amendment is a step forward in keeping 
     this commitment.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Kenneth C. Huber,
                                               National President.

  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Mr. HARKIN. I might just quote here from the Vietnam Veterans of 
America:

       VVA has long held the principle belief that the health care 
     and benefits needs of veterans are an ongoing cost of our 
     Nation's defense.

  I think that is the problem around here. We have a defense budget, 
then we have a veterans' affairs budget--as if somehow they are 
separate and distinct and have no connection with one another. I think 
this sentence really says it clearly:

       . . .the benefits needs of veterans are an ongoing cost of 
     our nation's defense.

  We cannot separate the two.

       Your amendment will carry forward with assurance of the 
     Nation's commitment to veterans' military service-related 
     health care needs.

  The letter from the Vietnam Veterans of America, Incorporated, goes 
on and says:

       Some of your colleagues have argued that attrition of the 
     veterans population through deaths of World War II veterans 
     is an indication that VA needs less money to operate. 
     However, this narrow perspective fails to take into account 
     the rising costs of medical care, and more importantly, the 
     current demographics of the veterans population. VA health 
     care users are older and sicker than the overall American 
     public. Vietnam veterans now represent the largest group 
     within the veterans population. Many of the Vietnam veterans 
     and a growing population of Persian Gulf war veterans have 
     complex problems relating to herbicide, chemical and other 
     environmental exposures.
       VVA strongly believes that Congress must commit an adequate 
     annual appropriations to VA medical care programs. Your 
     amendment is a very positive recognition of the current 
     circumstances and needs of America's veterans. Thank you for 
     your initiative to attempt redistributing some DOD funds 
     towards VA medical care.
       Sincerely, Kelly Willard West, Director of Government 
     Relations.

  The same thing basically follows through on the Blinded Veterans 
Association and the Paralyzed Veterans Association of America. The 
Blinded Veterans Association says:

       The VA health care system has already been pared to the 
     bone, and we doubt there are any more efficiencies that can 
     be realized to offset inadequate resources.

  Fewer dollars means fewer veterans will be served, pure and simple, 
and that is the truth. Fewer dollars means fewer veterans will be 
served.
  Let me just, right now, refer to this chart for those who think that 
may be taking $329 million out of a $271 billion defense budget--think 
about that, $271 billion, and all we are asking for is $329 million, 
just to get veterans' health care benefits up to meet inflationary 
needs. If you look at this chart, it shows you how much we are spending 
on military of our discretionary budget. If you look at our 
discretionary spending, military consumes half of it. Half of all that 
we spend in this Congress goes to military spending--half, 50 cents out 
of every dollar. Out of the other 50 cents, we take agriculture and 
energy and Social Security, economic development, transportation, 
science and space, housing, foreign affairs, foreign aid, health, 
justice, education. We hear all this debate that we are spending too 
much on education--6 cents out of every dollar; 6 cents for education, 
50 cents for military spending.
  We are not talking about all these, we are talking about veterans' 
benefits. Out of this $1 that we spend here every year, how much goes 
for veterans' benefits? 3\1/2\ pennies--3\1/2\ pennies, to meet the 
medical needs of those who risked life and limb to preserve and protect 
and defend the Constitution of the United States.

  I think that we can do a little bit better than 3\1/2\ pennies. I 
think the amendment we are offering brings that to just a little under 
4 pennies, if I am not mistaken. Is that too much to ask? It is not too 
much to ask when we are taking 50 cents out for defense. I think the 
Vietnam Veterans of America had it right. We should not separate 
veterans' benefits out of defense. It is part of the ongoing costs of 
the defense of this country, and we should not separate the two out.
  I believe we are meeting our commitments globally. I take a back seat 
to no one in saying that we are the world's most powerful nation, that 
we have a lot of commitments globally, that we have to meet those 
commitments. We are meeting those commitments and we will continue to 
meet them. And taking $329 million out of the defense budget is not 
going to harm that one little bit. But what will harm us, if we do not 
meet this commitment, is that many of our veterans, our Vietnam 
veterans, now today many of our Korean war veterans and even some of 
our World War II veterans, they are getting older--they are living 
longer, just as the demographics of our country are--they are living 
longer; they are sicker. There are leftover problems that they have 
that maybe were not indicated when they were in the military, such as 
herbicide and chemical poisoning and things like that, that now later 
on they are suffering from.
  What happens if we do not meet their medical needs? Aside from the 
personal suffering and the personal hardship that they and their 
families have to undergo, what happens is that younger people in their 
families and their friends look upon them and they say, ``Wait a 
minute. Here is someone who went to the Persian Gulf. Here is a veteran 
who fought in Vietnam. Maybe here is someone who was in Korea, and yet 
they are not being cared for? A lot of the funding has to come out of 
their own pockets to meet their medical needs?''
  I would imagine a lot of younger people would say: Why would I ever 
want to go in the military? If we promised to meet their health care 
needs and later on we don't live up to that obligation, what does that 
say to our younger people who we want to enlist and become active duty 
members of our armed services?
  I think our lack of spending adequate resources to keep up with at 
least inflation in veterans' health care benefits has a deleterious 
effect on the security of our Nation. I see this amendment as not just 
something helping the veterans and meeting the obligation that we have 
to our present-day veterans, but I see this amendment as really meeting 
the future security needs of our country by saying to those who come 
along next, who may be asked to go to some other place in the world to 
defend this country, to defend our vital national interest, it says to 
them, ``When you are in that position, we're going to meet your 
obligations, too.''
  I just feel very strongly that this is something that we have to do 
as a society. I am not trying to goldplate anything. I am not trying to 
boost veterans' medical benefits' spending way pie high in the sky. I 
am simply saying at least we ought to keep up with inflation. We do 
that here. We kept up with inflation in energy and agriculture, 
national affairs, justice, education--we keep up basically with 
inflation. Why shouldn't we do this for our veterans, also?
  As the Independent Budget Project of the veterans' groups have 
pointed out, tens of thousands of Americans who now stand in harm's way 
in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, and other troubled spots

[[Page S6989]]

around the world will be the veterans of tomorrow. It is worth noting 
that the veterans suffering from the complicated gulf war illnesses may 
end up being a greater financial strain on the system in the future. 
What are we going to say to them? Tough luck?
  In other words, Mr. President, the demand for VA health care will not 
diminish in the foreseeable future. Just because there are fewer people 
doesn't mean we can spend fewer dollars. They are living longer, they 
are getting older, and they are sicker, and a lot of the illnesses they 
contracted haven't shown up. We can't just wish it away.
  All we are asking is to provide the resources to meet the demand that 
is there. That is what this amendment does. I urge its adoption as the 
fair and equitable and the right thing for our country to do for the 
veterans who fought in World War II, Korea, the Persian Gulf, Vietnam 
and, yes, in Bosnia, too, and for those younger people who are going to 
be the veterans of tomorrow, we have to meet this obligation.
  I will point out, I offered this amendment last year, and I didn't 
have all of the figures down--we do this year--keeping up with 
inflation. This amendment received 41 votes last year on a bipartisan 
basis. It is less money this year. We are actually asking for less 
money this year just to keep up with inflation. I am hopeful Senators 
on both sides can see fit to meet the obligation to our veterans.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is not easy to get up and first say to 
my good friend, who is a veteran, a naval aviator--he achieved 
distinction in the Navy which I never achieved. I was a simple 
radioman, but anyway, I sat in the backseat of some of those planes you 
flew around in on occasion.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, you were my boss at one time.
  Mr. WARNER. I realize that. I am very humble about my small 
contribution to national security at the tail end of World War II and 
in Korea. But I was privileged, like so many others, to serve. My 
contribution was modest. The military did far more good for me than I 
was able to do in return. Therefore, throughout my career in the 
Senate, I have tried to look after the men and women in the Armed 
Forces and, indeed, the veterans, because I find as we grow a little 
older, we have friends who depart on a regular basis.

  There are some 300,000 men and women who served in World War II who 
consistently die every month now. It is an alarming fact, considering. 
I would like to ask my good friend a question or two. I studied the 
amendment. Your first version of the amendment says:

       The Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs $329 million.

  The one that is before the Senate at this time appears to have been 
changed:

       The Secretary of Defense is authorized to transfer to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs $329 million.

  I am curious as to one of the reasons the Senator changed from a 
clear statement that it would be shifted as a budget matter, to where 
it now----
  Mr. HARKIN. I was informed--if the Senator will yield.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. By using that former language, a point of order would 
have laid against the amendment. To avoid the point of order and, quite 
frankly, in all legitimacy, since this is an authorizing bill, it 
really ought to be authorizing language, too.
  Mr. WARNER. If I read the amendment which is now before the Senate, 
and again I will read--``* * * the Secretary of Defense is authorized 
to transfer * * *''--you are leaving it entirely a discretionary matter 
with the Secretary of Defense.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is a colloquy. I am delighted to.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is right. It would be to the Secretary. 
However, I think the Secretary would look at how the Senate spoke and 
how the Congress spoke on this to decide what to do. Obviously, if the 
Senate voted to do this and it was a strong vote, then I think he would 
pay attention to it, he or she would pay attention to this.
  Mr. WARNER. We place the Secretary, one of our very own for whom we 
have the absolute highest respect, in an awkward position that now 
these groups will petition him, and he is faced with the tough choice 
of deciding between those who once served with great honor and 
distinction should receive moneys which he feels very strongly today 
should go--every penny, every penny--to the quality of life, the 
modernization of weapons, the operational costs of those who are 
currently in uniform today. It puts the Secretary in a very difficult 
position. This concerns me.
  Mr. HARKIN. There are priorities to be met and, quite frankly, in 
this $271 billion defense budget, it is my feeling--and I looked at it, 
I am on Defense Appropriations, I have looked at it and I, quite 
frankly, believe that the Secretary could find $329 million out of 
that. I don't think it would do any damage to our readiness, our 
capabilities overseas or anything else.
  Quite frankly, I have some comments I was going to talk about--but I 
decided not to because the hour is late--in terms of what some of the 
IG offices found in terms of waste and inefficiencies in procurement, 
in warehousing and things within the Department of Defense. With a 
little bit more oversight and control on those, I think they can yield 
great dividends and can be used on this.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in my 19 years, I have heard that argument 
of inefficiency and waste in the Department of Defense. All of us 
recognize that, and I am sure our Secretary, our former colleague, Bill 
Cohen, is doing his very best to try to bring about every kind of 
efficiency he can to generate funds.
  Frankly, I say to my good friend, Secretary Cohen is desperate for 
money. So much of the funding that we have authorized for programs in 
the past has been diverted to take care of the fulfillment of military 
commitments as directed by President Clinton. Our military today has 
been deployed more times throughout the world than any other President 
has ever deployed them beyond our shores. The Bosnia commitment alone 
has absorbed some $9 billion.
  I ask my friend, I listened very carefully to your statement, and I 
am deeply moved by it. I really think this problem should be addressed, 
and you are saying that we haven't even covered for the modest increase 
in inflation the various costs associated with the care of our 
veterans?
  Mr. HARKIN. It is my understanding, I say to my very good friend--I 
want to make this clear at the outset that I have the highest regard 
and respect for the Senator from Virginia and his devotion to this 
country and his devotion to the readiness of our military and also his 
devotion to our veterans. I would not want anyone to misconstrue that I 
am saying the Senator from Michigan or the Senator from Virginia have 
shortchanged it.
  I understand the obligations that you are under in terms of meeting 
our military commitments. I understand that. This amendment is meant 
only in good faith to try to meet, I think, another commitment that we 
have. And in some ways I hope to shed some light, hopefully, on one 
aspect of military spending that could be used for our veterans' 
affairs.
  I say to the Senator that 2 years ago the comptroller general of the 
Pentagon concluded that the DOD could not account for over $13 billion 
in spending--just disappeared--$13 billion. Nobody knows where it went. 
Well, I have more examples of that. But if it is just $1 billion, only 
one-thirteenth of that, then $329 million is not that much, when you 
take into account that kind of waste.
  Quite frankly, I must tell you that I think Secretary Cohen is doing 
a great job over there. And they are getting a better handle on this 
all the time. But there is still a long way to go. I think within the 
next year they could find some of that money and put that in veterans' 
benefits.
  Now, lastly, I say to the Senator, I would say that the question had 
to do with, are we not meeting the obligations? And I am saying, when 
you take into account medical inflation, which is higher than CPI, no, 
we are not meeting them.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I intend to study further the amendment

[[Page S6990]]

by my distinguished friend. But I certainly agree with one thing you 
said, and that is, the manner in which the United States treats its 
veterans has a direct impact on whether successive generations will 
offer themselves to serve proudly in the uniform of our country. I know 
you are absolutely right about that. There are many, many cases where 
it is grandfather to father, father to son or daughter, as the case may 
be, that induces the current generation to proudly come forth and 
volunteer. That has really been the success of the All Volunteer Force.
  And what you point out tonight is a very serious situation. And it 
impacts directly on that argument. I would have to say to my friend, 
being a member of the Appropriations Committee, and knowing the 
chairman of the committee himself is a very distinguished veteran of 
World War II, an air corps pilot, has my distinguished colleague 
brought this to his attention? In other words, within the 
appropriations could this sum of money be found?
  My concern is that I am entrusted, and tonight representing the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, to manage this bill in such a 
way as we do not open up the opportunity for Senators to come in and 
take pieces of our authorized amount by the Budget Committee to spend 
and put it toward other accounts, because if we begin to do that--for 
instance, if we would accede here tonight to your request, I could 
anticipate a dozen colleagues coming to the floor tomorrow with 
requests which they conscientiously feel just as seriously about as you 
do about yours; and the next thing you know, it would be one after 
another, to take a piece here and a piece there, and suddenly it would 
become very significant--not that this isn't a significant sum of 
money.

  We will have to look at this. But I would have to say that I am 
concerned that we could start a raid on the defense budget here 
tonight. But I hope that this matter can be addressed here in the 
Senate somewhere, be it the Appropriations Committee or the Veterans 
Committee. I commit to you that if you bring this up in another piece 
of legislation, I will conscientiously see whether or not I can support 
it.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, I feel for the position of my friend. And, you 
know, a lot of us, when we establish friendships, we do not like to put 
people in difficult positions. I do not like to do that.
  Mr. WARNER. I do not find the position difficult. I feel very 
strongly about the defense budget. I support the budget process. Your 
committee, the Veterans Committee, went through the budget process. Our 
committee went through the budget process. We have our allocated funds. 
And I am entrusted by the chairman and other members of the committee 
to steadfastly defend that allocation given to us by the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand the responsibility that the Senator has. I 
understand that responsibility. And I appreciate that. But, again, as 
the Senator knows, others of us feel that we also have other 
obligations to try to change some things here and to change some of 
these budget priorities.
  In my opening comments, I said that our budget priorities are not 
allowing for this. I am trying to correct it. So I agree with the 
Senator. I do not like the way the budget priorities shortchange our 
veterans' medical benefits. But, again, I also say to my friend, I 
really believe in what the Vietnam Veterans of America said in their 
letter, that veterans' medical benefits ought to be considered an 
ongoing cost of military spending. They are not today.
  I have always thought that was odd. I have always thought that was an 
odd approach we had on that. And they ought to be considered as part 
and parcel of our military budget. That is why I have offered this 
amendment, to transfer a small amount of money out of the total--small 
compared to the total--at least to keep up with medical inflation.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will conclude just with this observation 
of our very able staff director, Les Brownlee, who just handed me a 
note which indicates that the VA increase in the Senate budget 
process--that is, the account for the committee on veterans here in the 
Senate--for the fiscal year 1997 to 1998 was a 12.2 percent increase in 
your budget, and the DOD increase was less than 2.2 percent. So that is 
a fairly significant increase that this communication indicates to me 
and that your committee got.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment 
offered by Senators Harkin and Wellstone to reduce defense spending, 
and any amendment which lowers defense spending below the levels set in 
the budget agreement. When the Congress approved the budget agreement, 
the spending limits for each function were set. The Armed Services 
Committee's challenge was to develop a defense program, within the 
limits of the budget agreement, that not only supports the national 
security strategy, but balances the needs of short-term readiness with 
that of the modernization of our forces--all within the context of a 
foreign policy that drives an unprecedented frequency of military 
deployments.
  The gap between our military capability and our commitments around 
the world continues to increase. The unprecedented frequency of 
deployments places hardships on our young service members and their 
families, producing serious retention and readiness problems. 
Contingency and ongoing operations, such as those in Bosnia and Iraq, 
continue to drain needed resources for future force modernization and 
the current readiness of our forces. Since 1996, the Department of 
Defense has been forced to offset almost $9.0 billion for such 
operations. The costs of these ongoing operations, in this fiscal year 
alone, are expected to exceed more than $4.1 billion. Therefore, I 
strongly believe--and I have stated this previously--that funding for 
Bosnia and Southwest Asia operations, and other emerging contingencies, 
must come from sources other than the defense budget. The funding of 
such activities should not be allowed to adversely affect modernization 
efforts or current force readiness.
  In the past three years, the Congress has added more than $21 billion 
to defense budget requests. Even with these increases, defense spending 
has continued to decline in real terms. This fiscal year the defense 
request again represents, in real terms, a 1.1 percent decline. Defense 
spending as a percentage of GDP in fiscal year 1998 is expected to be 
3.2 percent falling to 2.8 percent by fiscal year 2003--the lowest 
figures since 1940. The resource levels, as stated in the Budget 
Resolution, continue this decline in defense spending. While I continue 
to support the balanced budget agreement, I am concerned about our 
ability to modernize our forces and the effects of unbudgeted 
contingencies and ongoing operations on current readiness.
  Testimony and recent visits to our units by both members and staff of 
the Armed Services Committee have revealed disturbing trends: personnel 
shortages, lack of spare parts, extremely high unit operating and 
personnel tempos, and retention problems--especially with our pilots. 
General Crouch, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, testified to the 
Committee;

     In recent years, we have maintained readiness at the expense 
     of our modernization accounts. That is no longer a viable 
     strategy.

  Mr. President, we have an obligation to adequately fund for our 
national security and ensure we provide our servicemen and women with 
the best equipment available. I grow increasingly concerned when the 
Armed Services Committee receives testimony from one of our Service 
Chiefs stating that his funding is inadequate. General Krulak, 
Commandant of the Marine Corps, has told the Committee:

     I state for the third year running that our budget request is 
     not adequate to meet our needs.

He further stated in a letter to the Committee:

     . . . we are quite literally mortgaging today's health at the 
     expense of tomorrow's wellness--and have been for at least 
     the last eight years--in spite of the critically important 
     congressionally mandated adds to our accounts in the last two 
     years.

  Mr. President, there is a price for freedom. There is the price for 
world leadership. As Secretary Cohen stated:

     Having highly ready forces that can go anywhere at any time 
     really spells the difference between victory and defeat and 
     it also spells the difference between being a superpower and 
     not being one.

  Mr. President, as a result of the budget agreement reached last year, 
non defense discretionary spending received significant increases while 
defense continued its downward spending

[[Page S6991]]

trends--not even keeping pace with inflation. During the fiscal year 
1998 appropriations process, the national security appropriations bill 
had the lowest percentage increase from fiscal year 1997 funding level 
than any other of the appropriations bills. In fact, military 
construction appropriations had a negative change over the fiscal year 
1997 funding levels, making funding for national defense grow at one-
fifth the rate of domestic spending increases.
  Mr. President, I am not opposed to increasing the funding for 
Veterans' health care, but not at the cost of our national security, 
and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment and 
not further aggravate a serious underfunding of our defense.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mr. WARNER. I think it is important that the Chair state the pending 
UC order for the purpose of the Record here for those listening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I understand it, does the Senator from 
Washington desire some time on this amendment?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Washington would like about 3 minutes as 
in morning business.
  Mr. WARNER. On this amendment?
  Mr. GORTON. Not on this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. At the conclusion of this amendment, and all time 
having been yielded back, I ask the Chair to recognize the Senator from 
Washington so that he might speak for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  The Senator from Washington will be recognized for 3 minutes as in 
morning business.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, my 
distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the committee, and I 
will clear some 20 amendments on behalf of the members of the Armed 
Services Committee and others, and then we will go into the routine 
wrapup on behalf of the majority leader and the distinguished 
Democratic leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
3 minutes.

                          ____________________