[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 85 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7039-S7050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2057) to authorize appropriations for the fiscal 
     year 1999 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Inhofe amendment No. 2981, to modify the restrictions on 
     the general authority of the Department of Defense regarding 
     the closure and realignment of military installations, and to 
     express the sense of the Congress on further rounds of such 
     closures and realignments.
       Harkin/Wellstone amendment No. 2982, to authorize a 
     transfer of funds from the Department of Defense to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for health care.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. I congratulate Senator Wellstone for being willing to 
come down this early to offer an amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from South Carolina.
  Mr. President, I wonder whether I could ask my colleagues for 5 
minutes to speak as in morning business to quickly introduce a bill 
before going to my 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Wellstone pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2215 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

[[Page S7040]]

                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Deanna 
Caldwell, a fellow in our office, be allowed to be on the floor this 
morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2902

   (Purpose: To provide, with an offset, $270,000,000 for the Child 
           Development Program of the Department of Defense)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 2902, 
which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself, 
     and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 2902.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 200, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 1005. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Additional Funding.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by this Act for the Child Development Program of 
     the Department of Defense is hereby increased by 
     $270,000,000.
       (b) Offset.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the total amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     this Act (other than the amount authorized to be appropriated 
     for the Child Development Program) is reduced by 
     $270,000,000.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense shall allocate the amount of 
     the reduction made by paragraph (1) equitably across each 
     budget activity, budget activity group, budget subactivity 
     group, program, project, or activity for which funds are 
     authorized to be appropriated by this Act.
       (c) Use of Funds.--(1) The amount made available by 
     subsection (a) shall be available for obligation and 
     expenditure as follows:
       (A) $41,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year 1999.
       (B) $46,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2000.
       (C) $53,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2001.
       (D) $61,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2002.
       (E) $70,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2003.
       (2) Amounts available under this section shall be available 
     for any programs under the Child Development Program, 
     including programs for school-age care.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I introduce this amendment on behalf of 
myself and Senator Boxer. This amendment focuses on a real need in our 
Armed Forces. Really, we are talking about the children. We are talking 
about the need to have comprehensive child care for our families who 
serve in our Armed Forces who, after all, are involved in very 
important service for our Nation.
  Back in the 1980s this body began looking at the state of child care. 
Thanks to the leadership of Senator Kennedy, funding was appropriated 
to build child-care centers that provided new services to families of 
military personnel. Subsequently, the Department of Defense's child-
care programs have been able to provide quality--by the way, this is a 
model for the Nation--quality service to thousands of children of 
military personnel. But, by 1995, we find out that there is really a 
tremendous need, and while there are some 299,000 children served, 
there are 155,000 children of families that are requesting child-care 
services. This amendment is an effort to bridge this gap.

  For the parents of these 144,000 children--really, close to 155,000 
children--requesting this, this is a huge issue. It is difficult to do 
well when you are worried about whether or not your children have good 
care, and this amendment speaks to this problem. If you don't have 
peace of mind while you are serving our country, if you don't believe 
your child is receiving good care, what we are trying to do is provide 
the necessary family support services.
  There are a variety of different components that we are talking 
about. We are talking about, of course, early childhood development. 
That is to say, when both parents are working and you are trying to 
figure out what you are going to do with your child--and, look, for our 
military personnel, but also for all of our families--when both of you 
have to work, you know full well that the most important thing is to 
make sure that your child is receiving good child care. But for too 
many citizens in our country, and for too many military families, they 
are not able to fill that need. This amendment takes us a long way 
toward filling that need.
  In addition, there is the issue of afterschool care for younger 
children who are going home, but going home alone, again, when both 
parents have to work, trying to fill that very important need for 
military personnel; or there are occasions when there is a place to 
drop a child off from time to time when a parent or parents need to do 
so. Now, it is not free. What we have is a sliding fee scale basis of 
child care right now within the military, which is the way I think it 
should be done. Actually, the average fee is about $65 per child per 
week. It ranges from $35 to $88.
  The funding for the child development program of the Department of 
Defense is about $295 million. About 52 percent of the children have 
been served. What we are now trying to do is move toward serving the 
children for the vast majority of these families by, over a year 
period, increasing the appropriations by $270 million.
  The offset is as follows: We simply say, take one-tenth of 1 percent, 
one-tenth of 1 penny of every dollar, which now goes to the Pentagon 
budget, and just do an across-the-board cut. We have had studies that 
talk about administrative expenses that go way beyond this in terms of 
administrative waste. If you were just to make a cut in the waste and 
be more efficient, one-tenth of 1 percent--and I make this appeal to my 
colleagues--you could then appropriate this $270 million over a 5-year 
period. We would start with $41 million next fiscal year and, 
ultimately, we would build up, by the year 2003, to $270 million.
  What we are trying to do is to make sure that we meet a real need of 
our military personnel and their families. What we are trying to do is 
provide the service for as close to all of the children of military 
personnel as possible. What we are trying to do is build on the 
Department of Defense's child care program, which is a huge success. I 
have had an opportunity to talk with the people that run that program. 
I am very proud of what they do, but it seems to me that one of the 
best things we could do within the DOD budget is just simply say for a 
very small--one-tenth of 1 percent--cut across the board, you can take 
it out of waste easily and we could then have $270 million over a 5-
year period, which would help--again, let me be crystal clear about 
this--somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 children. Just think of 
how many military families we could help through this amendment. I hope 
that there will be support for this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
I share the Senator's concerns regarding the need to provide adequate 
resources to such worthy projects. Therefore, the bill we have before 
us fully authorizes the President's budget request for the Department 
of Defense Child Development Program. The committee has also 
recommended an additional $23.0 million in this bill to construct five 
new child care centers.
  Unfortunately, the Defense budget has declined so dramatically over 
the past several years that we cannot afford to reduce other programs 
below their current levels without significantly jeopardizing near and 
long-term military readiness. Furthermore, I believe that this 
amendment has some technical problems.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I need 5 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me say that, as usual, our 
friend from Minnesota is fighting for a cause that is an important one. 
I think he is one of the leaders in this body of trying to make sure we 
have enough money for child care, child development, and it is 
important that leadership exist in this area. I commend him on that.
  The defense budget this year shows a greater than 10-percent increase 
in this

[[Page S7041]]

area. So I think the Defense Department is right when they give us the 
facts and tell us that they have a program for significant improvement 
in child care, in part, by the way, because of the efforts of people in 
this body many years ago. They have a projected significant increase 
over these years, in part, may I say, because of our former colleague, 
Bill Cohen. Secretary Cohen was a leader in the effort to provide child 
care in this Senate. He is totally dedicated to it in the military.
  The DOD effort, the planned effort to significantly increase the 
amount of child care, is requiring them to go off base frequently in 
order to do that, to get facilities off the site of the facility 
itself, and to go into the neighboring communities to get child care. 
But they are on that course of action. They are doing that, and they 
should. But they have put in this budget this year approximately a 10-
percent increase in funding for child care. It is part of a significant 
increase that has been projected over a number of years for child care, 
and it is in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, who, when he was in 
the Senate, showed a tremendous commitment in this area and has 
continued that commitment as Secretary of Defense.
  So the increases that are significant have been planned. They are 
proceeding in a planned way. The Defense Department feels that it is 
proceeding as quickly and as administratively feasible and efficiently, 
and I would, therefore, oppose the Senator's amendment.
  I do so with some reluctance because of the subject matter. But 
despite that reluctance, I feel that the Defense Department is 
proceeding on pace, in a planned way, and most importantly, proceeding 
in a way that involves a significant increase in expansion in child 
care, despite the fact that the number of people in the armed services 
is being reduced, and it is all under the leadership of a Secretary of 
Defense who has shown a commitment to child care over the years.
  So for those reasons I will oppose the Senator's amendment. But, 
again, I express my feeling that, as he so often does, he is addressing 
an issue that is an important issue for the Nation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate both my colleagues' 
remarks.
  I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from a CRS study be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         [Excerpt from CRS Report for Congress, Sept. 14, 1995]

       Military Child Care Provisions: Background and Legislation

(By David F. Burrelli, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs 
          and National Defense Division with Kristin Archick)

       In the 1995 survey, potential need for all the services is 
     estimated to be 299,278 child care spaces. Given that there 
     are currently 155,311 spaces, DoD is meeting about 52 percent 
     of the total potential need.

          TABLE 6. NEED FOR CHILD CARE SPACES BY SERVICE, 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Have         Need     Percent met
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army.............................       69,366      109,814           63
Navy.............................       28,074       80,488           35
Air Force........................       45,785       85,927           53
Marines..........................        9,086       23,049           39
DoD..............................      155,311      299,278           52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: DoD's Office of Family Policy, Support and Services.

       Currently, there is a waiting list of approximately 93,400 
     children for military child care spaces.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \39\ Maze, Rick, Child Care Centers Get a Huge House Boost, 
     Army Times, July 3, 1995: 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Department of Defense had its own 
internal study in 1995. I agree with my colleague from Michigan in his 
praise of our Secretary of Defense and his commitment.
  I don't think the Secretary of Defense would disapprove of this body 
taking yet another step forward in this area.
  We had an internal study in 1995 where the DOD essentially said, 
``Look, we can only satisfy 52 percent of the need for child care of 
families in the armed services.'' I am looking at almost 50 percent of 
the families not able to get the care for their children that they 
need. As far as how we do this, we are very clear that this gets phased 
in over a period of time.
  As I said to my colleagues, we start next fiscal year with the $41 
million, and then we gradually increase it, so that by the year 2003 it 
is $70 million. Overall it is $270 million, one-tenth of 1 percent of 
the overall budget. There have been plenty of studies that say we spend 
way more than that in administrative ways.
  I cannot believe that the Secretary of Defense, or certainly anybody 
who is involved with the Department of Defense child care program, 
would not say, ``Senators, if you are willing to take one-tenth of 1 
percent across the board, and you will earmark that for expanding child 
care services so that we can meet the needs of 155,000 children and 
their families, we are for it.''
  I again appeal to my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Who yields time? If no one yields 
time, it will be divided equally.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes 55 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If my colleagues have essentially yielded their time, 
or may now reserve some of their time, let me try to summarize it.
  Let me try to make this appeal again. We have a 1995 study which 
says, ``Look, almost 50 percent of the families are hurting here. They 
need the child care services.'' I have a Congressional Research Service 
study that says the same thing. We phase it in over a 5-year period. It 
is a total of $270 million, one-tenth of 1 percent of the overall 
Pentagon budget.
  Isn't part of our readiness making sure that these families of our 
military personnel can feel secure that their children are getting good 
child care? Can't we do this in our budget for our military families?
  The medical evidence is overwhelming about the importance of early 
childhood development. It is overwhelming about the development of the 
brain. It is overwhelming that we ought to do better. This amendment 
enables us to do this. I guess I am disappointed in the opposition, 
although, of course, everybody has a right to take whatever view they 
want to.
  I make yet one final appeal to my colleagues to please support this 
amendment. It is eminently reasonable, eminently balanced, and it 
really does a world of good for military families.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield time to the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we spoke with the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense, Carolyn Becraft. She is in charge of their family 
program. They oppose this amendment.
  When the Senator says he can't believe that the Defense Department 
would not support this, or the people in charge of families and child 
care would not support this amendment, we asked them what their 
position was. Their position is that the child care program is funded 
in a way to expand the availability of child care in a planned way.
  I want to emphasize that. We have a significant expansion in child 
care in the Defense Department underway. It is because of the 
initiative of many people within the Defense Department and outside, 
including Members of this body. It is under the supervision of a 
Secretary of Defense who is totally committed to child care. He showed 
that when he was in this body, and he has continued to show that as 
Secretary of Defense. The Defense Department has this significant 
expansion, which is ongoing in a planned way, and that is why they do 
not support this additional increase.
  That comes from the Assistant Secretary of Defense who is responsible 
for dealing with the needs of families in the Defense Department.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 2 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me be clear to my colleagues. I 
believe in the basic discussion I have had that a lot of the men and 
women in personnel who are involved, I say to my colleagues, who are 
actually involved down in the trenches delivering child care programs 
within the Department of Defense child care program, will tell you, 
``Senator, $270 million over 5 years

[[Page S7042]]

would do us a world of good, because we have almost 50 percent of the 
families we can't serve.''
  My colleague can get a statement from the director saying, ``Look, we 
are not in favor of this.'' I mean that can be the position that the 
Department takes. That is the position that maybe someone who 
administers the program takes. But with all due respect, I have here a 
Congressional Research Service report. I will quote. This backs up the 
internal 1995 DOD report.

       In the 1995 survey, potential need for all the services is 
     estimated to be 299,278 child care spaces. Given that there 
     are currently 155,311 spaces, DOD is meeting about 52 percent 
     of the total potential need.

  My colleagues come here to the floor and they say there is already a 
plan to meet this need. But there isn't a plan to meet this need. We 
are talking about a gap of 48 percent.
  I will say it one more time. Just ask the families. Just talk to the 
families. Ask that 48 percent what it feels like to not have adequate 
child care, what it feels like when you both have to work and you don't 
know whether your child is in really good child care, what it feels 
like when you are both working and your child comes home alone from 
school.
  We could do a world of good. The evidence is clear. There is a huge 
gaping need here.
  With all due respect, whatever official positions we get from DOD on 
this, the fact of the matter is, I think, the evidence is irrefutable. 
We have a 48 percent gap, and for 1 penny of 1 dollar, one-tenth of 1 
percent across the board, look at the studies on administrative waste. 
We could put $270 million into child care for our military families and 
meet a huge need. That is the issue.
  I hope there will be strong support for this amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, just 1 additional minute.
  The source of these additional funds is across-the-board reduction in 
every budget activity in the Defense Department. It is not aimed at 
some category called ``waste.'' I think if there were such a category, 
everybody in this body would identify it. And I have spent a good part 
of my life seeking to identify it, have identified a lot of it, and we 
have been able to get rid of a lot of it.
  This amendment would take money from every budget activity, in a very 
small amount, which the Senator has identified. But those budget 
activities for weapons systems are just as important as they are. 
Research and development is part of that. Those budget activities 
include DOD schools, family support centers, commissaries. Families 
need those things too.
  So when the Senator makes an unallocated cut across each budget 
activity, many of those budget activities are as critical to those very 
same families as we are trying to help with our child care program.
  Mr. President, again, I oppose this amendment. I hope it is defeated. 
But I want to end on a positive note and again say how much we 
appreciate the strength with which the Senator from Minnesota supports 
the kind of causes which are so important to the people of this Nation 
and to the people in the military.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Cardell 
Johnson, an intern in my office, be allowed floor privileges.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just say to my colleagues, this 
is one-tenth of 1 percent, and we have studies on administrative waste 
within the Department of Defense. That is my point. It is hard to 
believe that we could not take one penny out of $1 of the overall 
budget and put it into child care to make sure that these families are 
able to receive the support that they deserve. With almost a 50-percent 
gap, according to CRS, a waiting list of 93,000 families for child 
care, this is a great opportunity to help a lot of military families in 
probably the most important way we can. All of us who have been parents 
and grandparents know that. So I hope my colleagues will support this 
amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the request 
for the yeas and nays?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Wellstone 
amendment No. 2902. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and the Senator 
from Delaware (Mr. Roth), are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is 
absent because of illness.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), 
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 18, nays 74, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]

                                YEAS--18

     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Ford
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--74

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Glenn
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Specter
  The amendment (No. 2902) was rejected.
  Mr. COATS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alan 
Easterling, a legislative fellow in my office, be allowed privileges of 
the floor during this action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2981

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question 
reoccurs on the Inhofe amendment No. 2981, of which there will be 10 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, could I ask, who will be controlling the 
time on the proponents' side of the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma controls the time 
for the proponents.
  The Senator from Indiana opposes the amendment and controls the time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding, for clarification, 
that we have 10 minutes equally divided, and I would like to be 
recognized to close debate on my amendment.

[[Page S7043]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. The Senator from Indiana is going to speak in opposition 
to my amendment; if you recognize the Senator from Indiana first, so I 
can close debate.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, very briefly, in the time we have, I don't 
enjoy opposing matters offered by my friend from Oklahoma, but I have a 
fundamental disagreement with him on this particular issue.
  We do four basic things in defense: We pay for people and their 
quality of life; we research, develop, and purchase modern weapons and 
give them the very best capabilities; we support the readiness of our 
forces; and we pay for infrastructure--the bases and all the 
infrastructure for support.
  We know four things: We know that our military people are underpaid 
and that their quality of life is suffering; we know they live in 
inadequate housing; we know we have a $10 to $15-billion-a-year 
shortfall in research, development, and modernization; we know that we 
have strains in growing, cracks and fissures in our readiness; and we 
know that we have too much infrastructure. The Department of Defense 
says we cut personnel and everything else by 40 percent, infrastructure 
by 20 percent.
  What this amendment does is send a message. It sends a message that 
we will subordinate the interests of caring for our people, of 
supporting new modernization of weapons, of making sure of our 
readiness, in order that we keep the infrastructure that we have, in 
order that we protect civilian jobs and bases that the Department of 
Defense does not want and does not need.
  It is exactly the wrong message to send to our service people, to 
send to our national defense. It jeopardizes our national security. We 
want to take reasonable steps to put in place a process to remove 
excess infrastructure so we can address these three other critical 
needs.
  I yield to my friend from Arizona.
  Mr. BYRD. Before the Senator speaks, would the Senator yield briefly?
  Mr. COATS. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Supreme Court of the United States has 
just struck down the line-item veto by a vote of 6-3. I ask unanimous 
consent that I and Senator Moynihan and Senator Levin may have some 
time--say, not to exceed 30 minutes--following the three votes that are 
scheduled.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object, unless Senator Coats and I are given equal 
time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would love to give both of those Senators 
double the time. I make the consent that they have equal time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time just 
yielded to the Senator from West Virginia not be deducted from the time 
of the Senator from Arizona. I yielded because I was under the false 
impression that the Senator was going to speak in favor of our position 
on this amendment.
  I am reluctant to fail to yield to the Senator from West Virginia, 
but had I known he was asking for time for this purpose, I would have 
been sorely tempted not to yield. I probably would have, but I would 
have been sorely tempted not to.
  I appreciate the Senator's interest in that subject, however. I know 
we have and will continue to have debates on that.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  I have a few words to say today about yesterday's colloquy between 
the Senator and myself in which I clearly misunderstood the Senator. I 
think we passed each other, but most of the fact that we passed each 
other was my fault, and I want to state that more clearly later today.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator for saying that.
  Mr. President, if I could ask, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes.
  Mr. COATS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me just make a couple comments on this 
amendment.
  One, there seems to be some debate as to whether base closing 
actually saves money or not--one of the more bizarre and interesting 
and illogical arguments I have heard in my time in the Senate. If 
closing bases didn't save money, after World War II we should have kept 
the thousands of bases that we had across America open. Look, closing 
bases saves money; it just depends on when. The sooner we get about 
that business, the sooner we will be able to have the money that would 
take care of force modernization, retention of qualified men and women, 
and so many other urgent requirements for national defense.
  Let me quickly add one of the practical effects of this amendment. It 
would prohibit any installation from being closed for 4 years following 
a realignment, where, as a result of the realignment, civilian 
employment dropped below 225--not military presence, civilian 
employment. My friends, there is nothing more revealing about the 
amendment than that the focus is on civilian employment. That could 
mean no installation could be closed--it could remain open, could be 
forced to remain open, with no military presence at all, no military 
people, but just 225 civilians, and the base being left open. It is 
incredible.
  Let me finally say, the Secretary of Defense has recommended a 
Presidential veto of this bill if this amendment goes through, and I 
strongly support that. This is a very dangerous thing for national 
security.
  I thank the Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, very briefly, every single Member of this Chamber 
understands that eventually we will have to have the intestinal 
fortitude to reduce infrastructure if we are going to support force 
structure. This amendment moves us in precisely the opposite direction. 
If we don't have the fortitude to make those choices, let's at least 
let our commanders have the flexibility so they can make the choices 
for us in the interim.
  Mr. President, virtually every Member of this body knows that another 
one or two rounds of base closures will not only save money, but will 
save billions. But many in the Congress have concluded unequivocally 
that preserving jobs and infrastructure in their states and districts 
is more important than military readiness and modernization. Some are 
in fact determined to punish the Administration for its actions related 
to privatization-in-place at Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases. But 
who is being punished? We punish the nation's taxpayers when we fail to 
make the best use of the resources with which they entrust us. We 
punish today's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines whose readiness 
depends on adequate funding for equipment, training and operations. We 
punish tomorrow's force as we continue to mortgage research, 
development, and modernization of equipment necessary to keep America 
strong into the 21st century.
  The amendment before us takes our parochialism and so-called 
punishment of the Administration even further. The amendment seeks to 
make it even more difficult for DoD to shift personnel among bases, to 
allocate resources as efficiently as possible, to align our 
infrastructure in the best manner for supporting the warfighter. 
Rather, this amendment represents a flagrant attempt to frustrate the 
legitimate efforts of our service leaders to reduce and realign their 
personnel and facilities to meet changing security requirements and 
save money.
  The standards for allowable realignment and adjustment of people and 
facilities are already significantly limiting for the services. Greater 
limits on service authority to adjust its infrastructure, reassign 
individuals and units, move forces and capabilities to where they are 
needed when they are needed--does nothing but harm national security. I 
urge my colleagues to reverse this insidious trend of raw parochialism, 
of protecting jobs and land and buildings at the expense of our 
nation's security.
  With that, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as a cosponsor 
of the amendment before us. This amendment would further reduce the 
Secretary of Defense's ability to close and realign

[[Page S7044]]

bases without the consent of Congress. The amendment also expresses the 
sense of the Senate that Congress should not authorize additional 
rounds of base closure until we have ceased operations at bases already 
marked for closure.
  I have listened carefully to the arguments of those opposed to this 
amendment. In the immortal words of that great pop philosopher Yogi 
Berra, it feels like deja vu all over again. If memory serves me 
correctly, on this very bill last year, many of these same Senators 
used many of the same arguments we are hearing today. After listening 
to last year's debate, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected their 
arguments. Little has changed in the intervening period. I believe the 
Senate should follow the same course this year.
  Since 1988, Congress has authorized four rounds of base closure. As a 
result of these authorizations, operations will be ended at 97 major 
military installations in this country--nearly 20 percent of all U.S. 
bases. In addition, activities will be curtailed at hundreds of other 
military bases around the country. These closures and consolidations 
will take until 2001 to complete. As they did last year, opponents of 
this amendment argue that we have not done enough. They argue that we 
need to close more bases. They assert that previous rounds of base 
closure have produced billions in savings and that future rounds will 
do the same. And they again rely upon incomplete and questionable data 
from the Pentagon to back them up.
  Last year, I joined with Senator Lott, the distinguished Majority 
Leader, and Senator Dorgan in pointing to base closure studies by the 
General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office that 
raised significant doubts about the Pentagon's data. After listening to 
our arguments, the Senate, by a vote of 66 to 33, adopted language 
offered by the Republican leader and myself requiring the Defense 
Department to submit a comprehensive report on base closure and to have 
GAO and CBO review this report.
  The Pentagon recently issued its four-volume report on base 
realignment and closure. Unfortunately, this report appears to be as 
short on new information as it is long in word count. Despite the fact 
that the report runs nearly 2000 pages, it fails to provide some of the 
basic information required under the legislation adopted by Congress 
last year. Moreover, since the Department chose to release its report 
just a short time ago, GAO and CBO have been unable to complete their 
review prior to the Senate's consideration of this amendment.
  Nonetheless, these organizations have already provided us with a 
considerable amount of information about the Pentagon's data on excess 
capacity and base closure savings. First, let me briefly address the 
Defense Department's assertion that significant excess capacity 
remains. As the Cold War was winding down in the late-1980s, the 
Defense Department properly decided to reexamine our military strategy 
and force requirements. The Pentagon conducted a rigorous analysis 
called the Bottom-Up Review. This review spelled out the numbers and 
types of military forces this Nation would need to meet the security 
challenges of the 1990s and beyond. In order to minimize disruptions, 
this review set precise future targets on such force components as 
military personnel for each service, combat ships, and fighting 
aircraft.
  Unfortunately, the Defense Department has never seen fit to produce a 
similar master plan on military bases. Despite the fact that the 
Pentagon has stated since the late 1980s the approximate number and 
types of forces it will need well into the next decade, it has never 
chosen to specify the number and types of bases necessary to house this 
force. Instead, DoD continues to make the case for base closures using 
questionable calculations of excess capacity. We made this point last 
year, and it remains valid today. According to a May 1, 1998 letter 
from GAO, ``precise measures of excess capacity are often lacking, and 
we have noted that DoD needs a strategic plan to guide the downsizing 
of its infrastructure.''
  As for savings from base closures, both GAO and CBO have issued 
reports that call into question the reliability of the Pentagon data 
offered up by the proponents of this amendment. According to GAO's most 
definitive base closure report, ``the exact amount of actual savings 
realized from [base closings] is uncertain.'' GAO goes on to say that 
the Defense Department's cost and savings estimates were, ``not of 
budget quality and rigor.'' CBO stated, ``[it] is unable to confirm or 
assess DoD's estimates of cost and savings because the Department is 
unable to report actual spending and savings for [base closure] 
actions.'' In other words, both GAO and CBO have raised significant 
questions about the accuracy of the Pentagon's accounting system for 
base closures.
  Mr. President, this is an extremely important issue. The outcome of 
this debate will have important consequences for both our national 
security and the scores of communities across this country that host 
military facilities. I remain concerned about the impact that 
additional base closures could have on our national defense. Once the 
Pentagon closes a major military installation, that facility is gone 
forever. The Defense Department cannot simply reopen the doors to a 
military base it has closed should a new military threat arise.
  This debate will also have a major impact on our communities. 
Ellsworth Air Force Base in my home state is an excellent example. This 
facility and the people who run it have served this Nation well for 50 
years. Given the far-reaching ramifications of closing additional 
bases, it is critical that Congress make informed decisions when 
deciding on the future of key facilities like Ellsworth and many others 
across this country. Despite the best efforts of myself and the 
Majority Leader in last year's Defense Authorization bill to gain the 
necessary knowledge, numerous important questions remain unanswered.
  In addition to firming up the cost data, the Pentagon must provide 
the Congress with rigorous analysis that spells out the number and 
types of bases it will need for the base force. Once the Pentagon has 
done its homework, it will be appropriate for Congress to consider 
taking action. I look forward to working constructively with the 
Department of Defense in the months and years ahead on the relationship 
between our national security and our base structure. Once the Pentagon 
has its own house in order, I am prepared to revisit this issue. 
Unfortunately, that time has not yet come. Therefore, I ask my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. COATS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask what the remainder of my time is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-two seconds left for the opponents and 5 
minutes for the proponent.
  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, there is not a person in this Chamber who 
has a stronger record for supporting defense than I do--not one Senator 
on the Democrat side or the Republican side has a stronger record in 
support of defense.
  No. 2, those individuals who are speaking against it, I wish we had a 
chance last night, we had a little bit longer for debate. This has 
nothing to do with base closures, because I approve of the BRAC 
process. Last night, I went into detail as to why I think that is the 
right process to use.
  No. 3, the Senator from Arizona talked about ``measuring" with 
civilian employees. That is current law. We are not changing that. That 
is already in the law. That law, by the way, was put on the books by 
the current Secretary of Defense when he was then in the U.S. Senate.
  So, I only say that we have covered all these bases. It is something 
that is significant. Yes, we do have excess infrastructure, but when we 
heard Secretary Peters and General Ryan say they didn't care what 
Congress said, they are going to go ahead and close the bases without 
going to Congress, I decided we had to do something to stop that. That 
is all this does--it makes them come to us instead of doing it without 
our consent or knowledge or without the BRAC process.
  I yield the remaining time to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma closed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not correct. The Senator from Indiana

[[Page S7045]]

still has 42 seconds, and the Senator from Oklahoma has 3 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding that I made the request that I be 
recognized to close debate on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was not the understanding of the Chair.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oklahoma be 
allowed to close debate--for how many minutes?
  Mr. INHOFE. One minute.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask that he be yielded 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Was that request for additional time for the Senator, or 
within the 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. My understanding was within the 5 minutes.
  Mr. COATS. We have no problem with the Senator closing debate. I 
don't think 42 seconds is going to swing things one way or another, 
unless I come up with something really clever.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota, 
and if there is a minute remaining, I will take the minute after the 
other side has concluded their remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I shall not use all the time allotted to 
me. I just want to make a couple points.
  There isn't any question, I say to my friend from Arizona, Senator 
McCain, that the base-closing rounds have saved money. I don't think 
there is a quarrel in this Chamber about that. Base closings save 
money. They do cost some money in the short term--there is no 
question--but they save money.
  I have voted for four rounds of base closures, and it is likely that 
I will vote for additional base closures, because we need some 
restructuring. But the real question is this: Will we have the 
information we need to make the right decision as we cast that vote?
  As my colleagues will recall, both the Congressional Budget Office 
and the General Accounting Office are skeptical about the Defense 
Department's savings estimates. Let me share what the Congressional 
Budget Office said about this a while ago:

       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.

  Then the Congressional Budget Office says:

       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.

  About a couple dozen of the bases that have been ordered to close are 
not yet closed. We ought to finish the job we have done in the previous 
rounds before we begin a new one.
  I have another question about this issue, and I think all of us 
should bear this question in mind. What does the Defense Department 
mean by requesting two additional base-closing rounds at the same time 
that folks at DOD are talking about building and developing new 
superbases? Where? How big? At what cost? Let's answer some of those 
questions before we proceed.
  Finally, let me respond to the remarks of the Senator from Arizona 
about civilian employees. The civilian employee standard has been in 
law for some 20 years. This amendment modifies it or adjusts it some. 
But as a standard for the Department's authority in this area, the 
number of civilian employees is not new.
  So I am happy to join the Senator from Oklahoma in authoring this 
amendment.
  Again, I think some base closings will save money. I think we will do 
that at some point, but this is not the time. We have nearly 30 that 
were ordered closed that are not yet closed. Let's finish that job.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 10 seconds to Senator Warner.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we spoke on this late last night, around 
9:30, 10 o'clock. The Senator from Virginia expressed his opposition to 
the amendment. I referred to the letter from the Secretary of Defense. 
I will read one sentence:

       This proposal would seriously undermine my capacity to 
     manage the Department of Defense.

  Bill Cohen is a man we all know, a man we unanimously supported. I 
think it is a testament to him that we defeat this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter from Secretary Bill Cohen be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       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 closure and realignments only 
     after first complying with the requirements of 10 USC 2687. 
     As a practical matter, section 2687 greatly restricts the 
     Department from 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 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. COATS. Mr. President, I yield our remaining time to the Senator 
from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment, if adopted, will dig us 
into a deeper hole. We are not authorizing a new BRAC round in this 
bill. That is not before us. This amendment will make it more difficult 
for the Secretary of Defense to realign bases that he currently can 
without a BRAC round.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One and a half minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I agree with the very letter of what the 
Senator from Michigan said. He is right. It does make it more difficult 
for the Secretary of Defense to close the realigned bases without 
coming to Congress or without going through the BRAC process.
  I have to say, respectfully, to my colleague from Virginia that the 
letter he read from was referring to a previous version--a much 
stronger bill. We have moderated this language quite a bit. I also say 
that is the same individual that put this into law 20 years ago 
himself.
  Third, this doesn't stop the 2001 BRAC process. It does not stop. We 
can still do it. It just says we don't need to decide in this bill 
whether or not we are going to have a 2001, and it could just as well 
be done next year.
  Lastly, the comment that was made that this would draw a veto, this 
is used every year. I have very serious doubts that the President of 
the United States, on the defense authorization bill, is going to veto 
it on the basis of an amendment that is supported by both the majority 
leader, Trent Lott, and the minority leader, Tom Daschle.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Is there a request for a 
rollcall vote?
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.

[[Page S7046]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is 
absent because of death in the family.
  I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is 
absent because of illness.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), 
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yes 48, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Abraham
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Torricelli

                                NAYS--45

     Ashcroft
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     DeWine
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Santorum
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Glenn
     Hutchinson
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Specter
  The amendment (No. 2981) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2982

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume the Harkin 
amendment, No. 2982, with 10 minutes of debate.
  First, we will have the Senate come to order. We will not proceed 
with debate and the vote until we can get Senators to take their 
conversations to the Cloakroom.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary procedure?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes, and 
the Senator from South Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment I offered last night--Mr. 
President, there still is not order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There continues to be a fairly high level of 
discussion. Will Senators to the left of the rostrum please take their 
conversations to the Cloakroom.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the President for getting order in the Chamber.
  This amendment I offered basically transfers $329 million from the 
Department of Defense to the Veterans Affairs' medical account. The 
veterans' needs are very clear. We have a declining population, they 
say, of veterans, so why do they need that much money? That may be true 
for World War II vets. But now we have the Vietnam vets coming on 
board. Plus, our vets are living longer and are sicker than the general 
population. Plus, we have the problems with medical inflation.
  Yesterday, during the debate, mention was made that the veterans 
account got more than a 12-percent increase from last year. I checked 
that out. That was based on a Washington Post article regarding the VA-
HUD appropriations. But when I looked at the total budget account for 
Veterans Affairs, from 1997 to 1998, there was less than a 1-percent 
increase in Veterans Affairs. That is for the total veterans budget. 
There was even less than that in the medical account budget for our 
veterans.
  What my amendment seeks to do is to put some money into the veterans' 
benefits in the medical account. This chart shows that out of our 
discretionary dollar, we spend about 50\1/2\ cents of each dollar for 
military, but for veterans' benefits, about 3\1/2\ cents.
  My amendment will take the alarmingly large amount of one-eighth of 1 
penny--one-eighth of 1 penny--of the entire Defense Department budget 
to put where it is needed to help care for our sick and elderly 
veterans. That $329 million will simply keep the current level of 
services. It will not expand it.
  Lastly, this amendment will authorize the Secretary to transfer the 
money. It doesn't mandate. Two years ago, the comptroller general of 
the Department of Defense said they could not account for over $13 
billion in DOD spending. They couldn't even find it. Then we had recent 
testimony this year from the IG's office regarding accounting 
principles. This will authorize the Secretary to transfer the money. 
Where will the Secretary get the money? You never know. Maybe they will 
get better accounting principles, maybe they will find some of these 
billions of dollars for which they haven't been able to account.
  Right now the Secretary cannot take that money and put it into 
veterans. This amendment will allow him to do so. It doesn't mandate 
it, but it allows it.
  Lastly, I note with some interest an article that appeared in this 
morning's Washington Post. It points out that the House yesterday voted 
to buy $431 million worth of airplanes that the Pentagon didn't even 
request. They didn't even request the C-130s. What the Pentagon did 
want is a squadron of F-18s, our carrier-based aircraft, because the F-
14s are getting old. Over 32 have crashed since 1991. Yet, we are going 
to buy $431 million worth of C-130s.
  If anyone is saying that DOD doesn't have the $329 million to take 
care of our veterans, I say nonsense. Of course, we do. I will make the 
point once again that taking care of veterans' medical needs is part 
and parcel of our ongoing military budget, and it ought to be viewed in 
that manner.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, the 
Chair will run the clock.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. I oppose this amendment offered by Senator Harkin, and 
I will make my statement short. We have had the debate on defense 
spending, and I do not need to repeat those arguments. The level of 
defense spending was set with the Administration in the budget 
agreement. This agreement was widely supported by this body and should 
not be disregarded. Some of my colleagues have argued that the money 
for defense is unnecessary and they have always found other uses for 
this money. Thankfully, Mr. President, this body has not agreed with 
these arguments and has provided the resources necessary to meet our 
national security needs.
  Mr. President, the budget agreement does not fully fund defense. The 
budget agreement represents what funds are available. The fact is, Mr. 
President, our Armed Forces have been reduced. Since the end of the 
cold war, the active military end strength has been reduced from 2.2 
million men and women to a little over 1.4 million. Annual defense 
spending continues to decline from the build up of $400 billion to 
about the $260 billion, in equivalent, inflation adjusted dollars.
  Mr. President, I am not opposed to increasing the funding for 
veterans' health care, but not at the cost of our national security. We 
have been warned of funding problems in defense. We must not further 
reduce defense spending, but instead, reverse the downward trend we 
have experienced over the last decade in defense spending. I sincerely 
hope we will heed the

[[Page S7047]]

hard lessons we have already learned, and not have to learn the same 
painful lesson over and over?
  Mr. President, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 48 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is supported by veterans' 
groups, including the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Blind Veterans 
Association, and the Vietnam Veterans of America.
  The veterans have fulfilled the duty they had to serve our country. 
Now it is up to us to fulfill our duties, our obligation, and our 
solemn promise: Provide for our veterans.
  Regardless of how you cut this issue, the health care of our veterans 
is a matter of our national security. What does it say to young people 
today entering the service who may serve in the Persian Gulf, or who 
knows where, to defend our national interest if they see how we treat 
the veterans of our past wars?
  This amendment will simply keep the current level of services in the 
medical account section of our veterans budget. We should do no less 
than that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired. The Senator from South 
Carolina has 2 minutes 40 seconds remaining.
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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 amendment No. 
2982. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is 
absent because of illness.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), 
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Robb
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Glenn
     Hutchinson
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Specter
  The amendment (No. 2982) was rejected.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Notwithstanding the pending business, I ask unanimous 
consent that I be permitted to enter into a colloquy with some members 
of the Armed Services Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          the aegis/nmd study

  Mr. KYL. I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished 
manager of the Defense Authorization bill and several other members of 
the Armed Services Committee who share my concerns about the Pentagon's 
failure to date to respond to a requirement established first by the 
Committee in its action on last year's DoD bill, and then by the 
conferees on that legislation.
  The first of these requirements was for the Defense Department to 
provide a study of the contribution that the Navy's Upper Tier--or 
Theater Wide--anti-missile defense program, based on the AEGIS fleet 
air defense system, could make to protecting the United States against 
long-range ballistic missiles. The due date for this report was 
February 15, 1998.
  The conferees added to this requirement by directing the Department 
to report by that same date on ``the feasibility of accelerating the 
currently planned Navy Upper Tier deployment date of fiscal year 2008'' 
including an estimate of ``the cost and technical feasibility to 
options for a more robust Navy Upper Tier flight test program, the 
earliest technically feasible deployment date and costs associated with 
such a deployment date.''
  Mr. President, many of us believe that the AEGIS Option may be the 
most expeditious, capable and cost-effective way to begin providing 
ballistic missile defense--not only for our forces and allies overseas 
but for the American people, as well. This is the case because the 
Nation has already spent nearly $50 billion building and deploying 
virtually the entire infrastructure we need to field the first stage of 
a world-wide anti-missile system.
  Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield?
  I want to commend the Senator from Arizona for his leadership in 
identifying and encouraging this important program.
  I too have, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, looked at 
the issue of our vulnerability to missile attack and concluded--as has 
my friend from Arizona--that it is one of the most serious shortcomings 
we have in our entire military posture.
  I too have concluded that there is nothing we could do that would be 
faster or more effective than the AEGIS Option in terms of defending 
our people against the sorts of threats we now read about practically 
every day--from the thirteen ICBMs China has pointed at our cities, to 
the possibility of an accidental Russian missile launch, to the Indian, 
Pakistani, Iranian and North Korean missile programs, to Saddam 
Hussein's VX never gas-laden missiles and so on.
  Does the Senator know why the Pentagon has not provided the 
information we requested last year? Our bill specifically said 
February.
  Mr. KYL. It is my understanding that this study has been complete for 
some time--well over a month. In fact, in early May, the President's 
key NSC staffer in the defense and arms control field, told a public 
meeting that it was ``in the mail.'' The staffer seemed to be saying 
that his office as well as the Defense Department had finished 
reviewing it and would be providing it promptly. Lt. Gen. Lyles did 
brief me on the study, and he has kept a dialogue open with my staff, 
but our preference is to receive the report.
  Mr. INHOFE. Has the Senator any indication about the cause of the 
further delay?
  Mr. KYL. I am advised that the study has been objectively perfomed. 
As a result, it confirms what the Senator from Oklahoma and I and 
others have been saying for some time: The Navy's AEGIS system can 
contribute significantly to protecting the United States against 
missile attack--and do so relatively quickly and inexpensively.
  Weeks and months have now gone by, the DoD authorization bill is 
nearly at

[[Page S7048]]

the end of the legislative process and the delay has kept Members in 
the dark about an important opportunity we have for adding promptly and 
cost-effectively to our Nation's defense.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. As the Senator from Arizona knows, I took 
the lead as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee's Strategic 
Subcommittee in drafting these reporting requirements. I think that, if 
what the Senator has been told is accurate, the Administration's 
conduct would not only be unresponsive to the mandate of Congress, but 
irresponsible with respect to our national defense.
  It would be completely unacceptable if Congress were to be denied 
information it has sought, not because the information is unavailable, 
but because its conclusions are inconvenient to an Administration that 
is determined to do everything it can to prevent the deployment of 
missile defenses.
  As Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee it is my 
responsibility to ensure that missile defense programmatic decisions 
are based upon solid information and facts. The report we are currently 
discussing is key to my subcommittee's future decisions on program 
direction and funding for missile defense. This report is one part of 
the process of examining our NMD program objectively, comparing the 
merits of each and deciding where future resources should be applied.
  Mr. WARNER. I want to identify myself with the statements of my 
distinguished friends and colleagues from Arizona, Oklahoma, and New 
Hampshire on this matter. I have been privileged to have a long 
association with the Navy, an association that continues to this day in 
my capacity as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee's Seapower 
Subcommittee.
  Over many years, I have watched the AEGIS system develop and mature 
as a formidable fleet air defense capability. I am persuaded that even 
greater returns can be realized from the wise investment our Nation has 
made in this system by adapting it not only to provide defenses against 
relatively short-range ballistic missiles but against the long-range 
ones that threaten our own people, as well.
  I believe we need to receive the contents of the requested study of 
the AEGIS Option forthwith. I will be happy to work with the Chairman 
of the Committee, with the Chairmen of our Strategic Subcommittee and 
our Readiness Subcommittee and with others like the Senator from 
Arizona to ensure that we find out at once where this document is and, 
to the maximum extent possible, that we share its conclusions with the 
American people.
  Mr. THURMOND. Let me say, Mr. President, that I would find it 
unconscionable if the Department of Defense were to be deliberately 
withholding a study that we sought in connection with our legislative 
responsibilities. We need to get to the bottom of this matter and I 
intend to do so.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would say to the Chairman that I hope he would agree to 
consider taking some stern measures in the conference committee if this 
study--which is now over four months overdue--continues to be kept from 
the Congress. One option that could be in order would be to ``fence'' 
the funds for the Office of the Secretary of Defense until such time as 
the AEGIS study is provided to us in both a classified and unclassified 
form.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I for one would be prepared to support 
such a measure, should that prove necessary.
  Mr. THURMOND. I can assure my colleagues that we will get this study 
one way or the other and I appreciate their excellent work on this 
issue.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and the 
Senator from Virginia for their strong leadership on this matter.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished Senator from 
Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise to alert my colleagues to a problem 
that I am trying to find a solution to. In the big scheme of things, I 
guess you might say this is not an overwhelming problem. But given that 
we are talking about the leadership of the Navy in the future, I think 
it is of enough significance that attention ought to be focused on it.
  In addition, I believe it is indicative of a problem within our 
military that I am seeing over and over again throughout the various 
branches of the armed services. I wanted to bring it to the attention 
of my colleagues today.
  We currently give Navy ROTC scholarships to the best and brightest 
students in America. Students from all over the country compete for 
these scholarships. I know many of my colleagues are probably not 
familiar with how the system works, but I want to try to explain it 
because you have to understand it to understand the problem that I am 
raising today.
  How the process works is, individual students apply to the Navy for 
an ROTC scholarship. They are evaluated on a nationwide basis. The Navy 
picks people who have technical skills in an academic capacity, people 
who the Navy believes will make outstanding naval officers. I think it 
is fair to say that Navy ROTC scholarships are among the most competed 
for scholarships in America. They carry great prestige. They also carry 
a commitment to pay tuition fees and expenses at the college or 
university that scholarship recipients attend. So they are important 
monetarily. They are important because they represent a highly prized 
scholarship, and they are important because they end up funding the 
future leaders of America's Navy.
  We are in the midst of a Pentagon effort to change policy with regard 
to Navy ROTC scholarships. The new policy is basically a movement 
toward limiting the number of individuals who can get a Navy ROTC 
scholarship and still go to the college or university of their choice. 
There are 69 colleges and universities in 68 programs in America that 
participate in the Navy ROTC program.
  How it works is, young men and women win the scholarship. They then 
must accept the scholarship. Then they submit the names of the five 
colleges or universities that they choose in order. And then the Navy, 
based on whether or not other students previously accepted it, decided 
to attend those universities, tells them where they can apply.
  This has produced a new policy, which is that several of our programs 
find themselves with two or three times as many students who have won 
the NROTC scholarship who want to attend that university. But what is 
happening is, they are now being told under this policy in the Navy 
that they won the scholarship, they won it based on merit, they have 
chosen to attend a college or university that participates in the 
program, but because 25 other people chose that college or university 
before they did, that the Navy has made a value judgment that we don't 
need more than 25 people to attend VMI on an NROTC scholarship, or to 
attend Texas A&M under an NROTC scholarship.
  This problem is further compounded by the fact that there is no logic 
to the distribution of these programs. For example, my guess is that in 
Texas we probably have 200 kids a year who win NROTC scholarships. We 
have four NROTC scholarship programs. And if these caps of 25 each are 
enforced, it would mean that half of the kids in our State who win 
NROTC scholarships would have to go to another State, to another 
school, in order to be able to receive the scholarship that they 
choose.
  Compare this to very small States where they might actually have 2 or 
3 recipients but at their college or university they have 25 slots 
where people can choose that school.

  This produces a terrible inequity. It creates an especially difficult 
problem for schools that are high on the list of people who win these 
scholarships.
  In fact, in an internal memo, the Navy has said that one of the 
reasons they want to set these caps is that they have estimated that if 
they allowed people who win the scholarships to choose the school they 
would attend, 250 people would attend MIT and 250 recipients would 
attend Texas A&M University.
  My question is, What is the problem? My question is, Why has the Navy 
decided that they are going to try to limit the ability of people who 
win NROTC scholarships to choose the college or university they attend 
that participates in the program?
  We, under this new rule, at Texas A&M will probably have three times 
as many kids from our State who want to

[[Page S7049]]

attend Texas A&M who have won an NROTC scholarship. And the Navy is 
going to tell them that, because 25 people chose Texas A&M before they 
did, they can't attend Texas A&M. Or, all over the country there are 
going to be tobacco kids who win an NROTC scholarship who want to go to 
MIT, or who want to go to Notre Dame, another very popular program in 
the NROTC program, and they are going to be told that they can't attend 
those schools because the Navy has decided to set a quota to require 
them to go to schools that they don't want to attend.
  Why are the quotas being imposed? This is the most incredible part of 
this quota policy. It shows you what you get into when the Navy tires 
of recruiting warriors, when the Navy tires of recruiting people who 
crush tires, when the Navy tires of recruiting people who keep Ivan 
back from the gate, and when we are socially engineering in the 
military services of this country.
  What is the logic of this? One supposed logic of it is racial 
diversity.
  Here is the interesting paradox that I want my colleagues to 
understand. I just pick out Texas A&M because I am from Texas A&M. At 
Texas A&M, we train and commission with NROTC 60 percent more Hispanic 
graduates who go into the Navy than the NROTC program does on average. 
But yet we are being discriminated against in students who want to come 
to Texas A&M in the name of racial diversity? How does that make any 
sense?
  The second reason for limiting the ability of students to choose to 
attend a school is because of tuition costs. Of those schools that are 
now above the cap: MIT, $24,265 a year; University of Colorado, $11,502 
a year; University of Southern California, $21,832 a year; University 
of Notre Dame, $21,027 a year; Texas A&M University, $2,594 a year.
  So we have a policy in the Navy that discriminates against students 
who want to go to Texas A&M when we have 60 percent more Hispanics 
commissioned in the Navy out of Texas A&M than the average NROTC 
scholarship. And, yet, the argument for these quotas is racial 
diversity. The second argument is high tuition costs. Yet, of all 
schools in the country that are over this new quota in terms of 
students wanting to enroll at them, Texas A&M has a tuition which, on 
overage, is one-tenth the level of other schools that are overenrolled.
  So I alert my colleagues to the fact that we have a major problem 
with the NROTC program. Now, what I believe we need to do is the 
following. I believe that we need to change the policy. We say we have 
a nationwide competition, we pick the best and the brightest, and then 
we say to the best and the brightest that they have the right to 
choose.
  I believe we ought to have a policy with regard to NROTC scholarships 
that if a young man or woman wins a NROTC scholarship based on national 
competition and they want to go to VMI, they should have the right to 
go to VMI. And if they are admitted, they ought to be able to enroll at 
VMI. The fact that 25 other students have chosen VMI should make no 
difference. I do not think it is right to make students who win 
national scholarships go to colleges that are not their first, or even 
their second, choice.
  Finally, another amazing thing in this Navy memo, they are talking 
about how they are concerned about people applying for scholarships. In 
the 1992-1993 academic year, we had 7,667 students in America, high 
school seniors, apply for NROTC scholarships. Today, we have only 5,037 
applying. Why is that? Why have we had a dramatic drop in the number of 
young students--young men and young women--who have applied for NROTC 
scholarships?
  The reason is the Navy is not letting them go to the school of their 
choice. When you win one of the most prestigious scholarships in the 
country and you don't even end up getting your second choice as a 
school to go to, obviously that dampens the willingness of people to 
apply. I do not think quotas ought to be used in choosing where 
children go to school in America. This is a national program. They use 
national tests. They have national standards. When someone wins an 
NROTC scholarship, the fact that we say to people in my State that half 
of the kids in Texas who win an NROTC scholarship have to go outside 
Texas in order to get the scholarship, and when three times as many 
want to go to Texas A&M than we allow to go to Texas A&M because we 
have a quota that says A&M can only allow 25 to enroll, even though 75 
may choose Texas A&M as their first choice, that is fundamentally 
wrong.
  The interesting paradox is that the argument for the quota--racial 
diversity and holding down costs--clearly does not apply to Texas A&M, 
because we commission 60 percent more Hispanics than the NROTC program 
in general does, and our tuition costs are one-tenth the level of other 
schools that are over the limit in terms of the ability of people to 
attend those schools.
  Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. COATS. I have discussed this with the Senator from Texas, and I 
think he has many valid points. I would like to offer my services as a 
member of the committee in working with him on this question. I think 
that this does need to be addressed. I think the Senator's points are 
legitimate. I am hopeful that we can sit down with the Department of 
the Navy and discuss how we can better address this. I understand their 
concerns, but I think the Senator's concerns need consideration. 
Surely, we can find a way--it is beneficial to the Navy, I believe, to 
find a way to address both the Senator's problems, along with theirs.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying I had not 
mentioned to the Senator, and I want to make it clear that so far as I 
know he was unaware prior to making that statement that one of the 
universities in America that is over this quota is Purdue University. 
Right now, they are six slots over the quota, which means that if this 
quota ends up being rigidly enforced, there will be 24 young men and 
women who wanted to go to Purdue who will not be able to attend because 
the Navy says they want them to go somewhere else.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield on that, the 
Senator had my attention on the issue before, but if he had any doubts 
about it, that has been resolved. He certainly has my attention now and 
we will work together to resolve, fix this problem.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I see Senator Byrd in the Chamber, and I 
want to stop. I do congratulate Senator Byrd on the Supreme Court 
ruling on the line-item veto. Senator Byrd had taken the position all 
along that the Court would strike down the line-item veto. I think what 
it says to those of us who are concerned about the line-item veto and 
concerned about spending is that we need to amend the Constitution, 
that we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I think 
it is our obligation now to go back and try to get that amendment to 
the Constitution passed.
  But I congratulate Senator Byrd. He is the greatest scholar in the 
Senate. He is guardian of this institution, more than any other person 
who has served here during my adult lifetime. His position was 
vindicated in the Court today, and I want to get out of the way and let 
Senator Byrd talk about it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senators from 
West Virginia, New York, and Michigan are recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would Senators allow me to do a UC on 
behalf of the majority leader and Senator Thurmond?
  But I first associate myself with the remarks about Senate Byrd being 
the greatest scholar. Clearly, I am not a runner-up, but the Senator 
from Texas is, and for him to make that humble statement has taken a 
lot of courage.
  Mr. GRAMM. I thought it was pretty clear myself.
  Mr. WARNER. I also wish to thank the Senator from Texas for sounding 
general quarters on this ROTC thing, Naval ROTC. We have to look into 
that.
  Now, Mr. President, I understand--
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator withhold one second?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield 
without losing the right to the floor on my own part, Mr. Moynihan's 
and Mr. Levin's, until the colloquy and the action that is about to be 
taken has been taken.

[[Page S7050]]

                         Privilege of the Floor

  Meanwhile, I ask unanimous consent that during the remarks of Mr. 
Moynihan, Mr. Levin, and my own remarks, former counsel for the U.S. 
Senate, Mr. Michael Davidson, be allowed the privilege of the floor of 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask 
unanimous consent that immediately following the 1 hour special order, 
the following Senators be recognized in order to offer the following 
amendments:
  Senator Dodd, regarding Reserve retirement, 10 minutes for debate, 
equally divided, and no second-degree amendments in order; Senator 
Murray, relating to burial, for up to 10 minutes, equally divided, no 
second-degree amendments in order; Senators Murray and Snowe, regarding 
Department of Defense overseas abortions, 1 hour, equally divided, with 
no second-degrees in order prior to the vote; Senator Reid, relating to 
striking Senator Kempthorne's language, 2 hours, equally divided, with 
no second-degrees in order; Senator Harkin, regarding gulf war illness, 
30 minutes, equally divided, with no second-degrees in order prior to 
the vote.
  I finally ask unanimous consent that any votes ordered in relation to 
any of the above-mentioned amendments be delayed, to occur in a stacked 
sequence at a time determined by the majority leader after consultation 
with the Democrat leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I beg the 
Senator's pardon; I was distracted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia reserves the 
right to object.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think this has been cleared on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia 
is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators.

                          ____________________