[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 85 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7057-S7078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. May I ask a parliamentary inquiry? What is the business of 
the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate, under a previous order, is 
authorized to deal with the amendment concerning Reserve retirement, 
for 10 minutes, equally divided.


                           Amendment No. 3004

(Purpose: To require actions to eliminate the backlog of unpaid retired 
                     pay relating to Army service)

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

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3004.

  Mr. DODD. 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 D of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 634. ELIMINATION OF BACKLOG OF UNPAID RETIRED PAY.

       (a) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Army shall take such 
     actions as are necessary to eliminate, by December 31, 1998, 
     the backlog of unpaid retired pay for members and former 
     members of the Army (including members and former members of 
     the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the backlog of unpaid retired pay. 
     The report shall include the following:
       (1) The actions taken under subsection (a).
       (2) The extent of the remaining backlog.
       (3) A discussion of any additional actions that are 
     necessary to ensure that retired pay is paid in a timely 
     manner.
       (c) Funding.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated 
     under section 421, $1,700,000 shall be available for carrying 
     out this section.

  Mr. DODD. Let me begin my thanking my colleagues on both the minority 
and majority sides for their support of this amendment. I rise on 
behalf of military retirees, all of whom are due a pension and medical 
benefits at age 60, as all of my colleagues are well aware. This 
amendment directs the Secretary of the Army to eliminate by the end of 
this calendar year a serious backlog that has developed in the 
processing of pension applications by Army personnel.
  My awareness of this problem began, as I think my colleagues will 
appreciate, with a letter that I received from a constituent, Mr. 
Arthur Greenberg, of Hamden, CT. Mr. Greenberg, a Vietnam veteran, 
retired from the military in 1984. Mr. Greenberg submitted his pension 
application back in February, 6 months before his 60th birthday. 
Recently, he called to check on the status of his claim and was told 
that his pension claim would not be processed until 9 months after his 
60th birthday. I assumed that this was just an isolated case and merely 
a problem to be corrected through the normal corrections in the 
bureaucracy.
  The Army informed me, however, that this is not an isolated case, and 
that its retirement benefits office presently holds a backlog of 2,000 
cases out of a total of 5,000. So Mr. Greenberg's situation is not the 
exception but fast becoming the majority of cases, in terms of pensions 
to be received. In other words, 2,000 military retirees who have 
reached their 60th birthday and become eligible for pensions and 
medical benefits are waiting for those benefits to come.
  The number of military retirees who become pension eligible increases 
every year. In 1994, there were 6,700 pension packages that were 
submitted. In 1996, the number jumped to 8,700. By the end of this 
year, over 10,000 Army retirees will have asked for their pensions. To 
give you some sense of where this is headed, 10 years from now that 
number will be 29,000 applications for pensions and medical benefits. 
In the face of this steady increase in the number of pension-eligible 
retirees, the office that processes Army pensions has been reduced from 
as many as 40 personnel a couple of years ago to just 17 people today.
  I realize the Army must make personnel reductions, but in view of its 
increasing workload, the Army pension office should not be so 
drastically cut. Some retired soldiers who spent a career defending 
this country cannot easily afford to wait for several months to begin 
receiving their retirement benefits. Those benefits make a difference 
in the majority of these people's lives.
  From the first day of boot camp, the Army has demanded from those who 
go through that process that they be punctual and responsible. Now, 
however, they must camp out by their mailboxes while they wait on the 
Army to provide the benefits to which each of them is entitled and due. 
This amendment, very simply, directs the Secretary of the Army to 
submit a report to Congress regarding this backlog and eliminate the 
backlog no later than December 31, 1998.
  Furthermore, it requires the Defense Department to provide up to $1.7 
million from existing funds to eliminate the backlog of Army pension 
claims--$1.1 million to update antiquated computer systems and another 
$600,000 to hire some additional 10 civilian personnel. That would get 
you up to 27--far short of the 40 we had before.
  By the way, I should say that the Army supports this amendment. They 
don't like the idea they cannot provide these benefits. But they 
believe these numbers would allow them to update their computer systems 
and hire the necessary personnel to process the claims. Then we can 
avoid, to put it mildly, the embarrassment of seeing these pensioners 
wait to get the dollars they are due. But, more important, the people 
who deserve these benefits will receive them on time.
  I am very grateful to our colleagues, both the distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, as 
well as my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, and the other 
members of the committee for their support of this amendment. I am 
grateful to them for allowing it to be considered and adopted, as I am 
told it will be, by approval of both sides.
  I yield to my colleague from Michigan, whom I see on the floor, for 
any comments he wishes to make on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
proceed for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me congratulate Senator Dodd for his

[[Page S7058]]

amendment. It is inconceivable to me, as it was to him, that a retired 
reservist would have to wait for up to 9 months to receive the first 
pension check. The Army must fix this problem, and quickly. We will do 
everything we can to ensure that this issue is addressed and is 
resolved very quickly, and it will be Senator Dodd's tenacity that is 
going to drive the appropriate quick response and outcome on this 
issue.

  So the amendment has strong support in the Armed Services Committee, 
and it has been cleared by both sides, I understand. I believe the 
amendment could be adopted at this point.
  Mr. President. I understand the amendment has been cleared by both 
sides.
  Mr. THURMOND. It has been cleared by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. THURMOND. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3004) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I had some time allocated for another 
amendment here that addresses Lyme disease, which we in Connecticut are 
painfully aware of since the name ``Lyme disease" comes from Lyme, CT, 
the town where it first achieved prominence. But I am going to defer on 
that and allow the Senate to consider the amendment at a later time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Washington is to be recognized. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 3005

           (Purpose: Relating to burial honors for veterans)

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

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Mr. 
     Murkowski, and Mr. Sarbanes, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3005.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 268, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 1064. BURIAL HONORS FOR VETERANS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Throughout the years, men and women have unselfishly 
     answered the call to arms, at tremendous personal sacrifice. 
     Burial honors for deceased veterans are an important means of 
     reminding Americans of the sacrifices endured to keep the 
     Nation free.
       (2) The men and women who serve honorably in the Armed 
     Forces, whether in war or peace, and whether discharged, 
     separated, or retired, deserve commemoration for their 
     military service at the time of their death by an appropriate 
     military tribute.
       (3) It is tremendously important to pay an appropriate 
     final tribute on behalf of a grateful Nation to honor 
     individuals who served the Nation in the Armed Forces.
       (b) Conference on Military Burial Honor Practices.--(1) Not 
     later than October 31, 1998, the Secretary of Defense shall, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
     convene and preside over a conference for the purpose of 
     determining means of improving and increasing the 
     availability of military burial honors for veterans. The 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall also participate in the 
     conference.
       (2) The Secretaries shall invite and encourage the 
     participation at the conference of appropriate 
     representatives of veterans service organizations.
       (3) The participants in the conference shall--
       (A) review current policies and practices of the military 
     departments and the Department of Veterans Affairs relating 
     to the provision of military honors at the burial of 
     veterans;
       (B) analyze the costs associated with providing military 
     honors at the burial of veterans, including the costs 
     associated with utilizing personnel and other resources for 
     that purpose;
       (C) assess trends in the rate of death of veterans; and
       (D) propose, consider, and determine means of improving and 
     increasing the availability of military honors at the burial 
     of veterans.
       (4) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the conference under this subsection. The report 
     shall set forth any modifications to Department of Defense 
     directives on military burial honors adopted as a result of 
     the conference and include any recommendations for 
     legislation that the Secretary considers appropriate as a 
     result of the conference.
       (c) Veterans Service Organization Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``veterans service organization'' means any 
     organization recognized by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     under section 5902 of title 38, United States Code.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment to the 
Department of Defense authorization legislation regarding burial honors 
for deceased veterans. I ask that my full statement be made part of the 
Record.
  Earlier this year, along with Senator Murkowski and Senator Sarbanes, 
I introduced the Veterans Burial Rights Act of 1998. Our bill requires 
the Department of Defense to provide honor guard services upon request 
at the funerals of our veterans. Importantly, my bill was crafted with 
the direct participation of numerous veterans service organizations and 
has been endorsed by the Former Prisoner of War, the Paralyzed Veterans 
of America, AMVETS and the American Legion.
  I got involved in this issue several years ago for a very simple 
reason. Sadly, all across this country, veterans are being buried 
without full military honors--honors earned through service to us all. 
We asked these soldiers, sailors, and airmen to travel to distant 
shores to risk the ultimate sacrifice. It seems only fair to ask the 
DOD to travel to a nearby community to remember and honor the 
sacrifices of our veterans.
  I believe we have a moral responsibility to tell each and every 
veteran at his or her funeral that we remember and we honor their 
service to our country. That message is so important to families who 
have sacrificed so much for our country.
  I can speak personally to the importance of the Veterans Burial 
Rights. Act. I lost my own father last year, a World War II veteran and 
proud member of the Disabled American Veterans. My family was lucky, we 
were able to arrange for burial honors at his service. Having the honor 
guard there for my family made a big difference and created a lasting 
impression for my family. We were all--and particularly my mother--
filled with pride at a very difficult moment for our family as Dad's 
service was recognized one final time.
  The Veterans Burial Rights Act seeks to ensure we make the same 
burial honors available to veterans and families who specifically 
request the honors at a funeral service.
  Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has opposed the Veterans 
Burial Rights Act. The DOD has bombarded Capitol Hill with doomsday 
proclamations about my bill.
  The DOD's stance has been particularly offensive to the veterans of 
our country. Not only did the DOD oppose a greater DOD role in 
providing burial honors for veterans, but they even went so far as to 
suggest the Department of Veterans Affairs should pay for honors taking 
additional dollars from health care, rehabilitative services and other 
veterans programs.
  The DOD recently wrote to the Armed Services Committee claiming that 
a four-person burial honors detail ``would have required 12,345 man-
years of effort at a cost of $547 million to support the 537,000 
veterans' funerals held in 1997.'' The last part is a direct quote. 
According to the DOD, funeral support in 1997 would have required 
12,345 man-years and $547 million for 537,000 funerals. I must say, 
that's impressive accounting for an agency that can't figure out the 
going rate for hammers and toilet seats.
  The DOD has chosen to fight my attempts to increase funeral support 
to veterans with funhouse mirrors. The DOD's arguments are based on 
providing funeral support to every veteran who dies. That's absurd. 
Veterans know this is not possible, logistics and cost will always be a 
factor. And most veterans' families will not request the services. The 
vast majority of veterans' families do not seek burial honors today. We 
are simply trying to provide burial honors for veterans whose families 
request the honors.

[[Page S7059]]

  The House of Representatives included a version of the Veterans 
Burial Rights Act in their version of the DOD authorization. The DOD 
issued an appeal to the House urging the ``exclusion'' of this language 
threatening that funeral support would have negative impact on 
personnel and operational readiness. And I should point out again that 
the DOD is choosing to interpret our legislative proposals and interest 
in this issue in the most negative manner.
  From the very beginning, we have sought to leave the DOD with the 
flexibility to write the directives on funeral support. No one wants to 
undermine the basic mission of the department. And particularly our 
veterans who continue to hold the various services in high esteem. But 
we do believe that the Department and individual services can and 
should do more on burial honors. We believe all of our assets--from the 
veterans service organizations to active and reserve components to ROTC 
cadets all across the country--can be utilized in a comprehensive and 
cooperative effort to provide burial honors for veterans and families 
seeking a final, deserved tribute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I understood I had 10 minutes to speak on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes equally divided.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I do not believe there is anybody speaking in opposition 
to this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that since the 
Senator from Maryland wants to speak for the amendment for a few 
minutes--
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield such time as he needs.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does the Senator from Washington need additional time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I need an additional 5 minutes. It is my understanding I 
had 10. If I can have 5 minutes and Senator Sarbanes 2 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. The Senator can have any time she needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 5 minutes 
also. Is it my understanding you have yielded your 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Washington.
  Mr. THURMOND. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask the Senator from Maryland be yielded 2 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, from the very 
beginning, we have sought to leave the DOD with the flexibility to 
write the directives on funeral support. No one wants to undermine the 
basic mission of this Department, especially our various veterans 
service organizations. They hold the Department of Defense and their 
service in high esteem.
  Already, veterans across the country are seeking to fill the void 
left by the DOD's inability to provide burial honors for veterans. 
Veterans service organizations want to be involved in the funerals of 
their fellow veterans. And we want them to continue to be involved. But 
the DOD overlooks this important asset. We are simply saying that VSO's 
and particularly older veterans cannot meet the demand alone.
  The DOD wants to study the issue. We know that more than 30,000 World 
War II vets are dying each month and the veterans death rate is 
increasingly rapidly. We need to act in the short term or America's 
heroic World War II veterans will be gone before the DOD decides to 
act. That's why my amendment gives the DOD 180 days to come up with new 
directives and legislative recommendations for the Congress. Every day 
we wait, a bit of our history passes away without recognition and 
gratitude.
  My amendment is very straightforward. It simply calls the DOD's bluff 
on burial honors for veterans. The DOD will be directed to hold a 
conference on burial honors by October 31, 1998 in cooperation with the 
Department of Veterans Affairs and veterans service organizations. 
Following the enactment of this legislation, the DOD will have 180 days 
to report back to the Congress detailing new DOD directives on funeral 
support and burial honors policy and forward to Congress any 
appropriate legislative recommendations.
  This is essentially what the DOD has pledged to the Congress in 
opposing more expansive legislation on funeral support. My amendment 
seeks to hold the DOD accountable to its pledges to the Congress and 
our veterans. This is a real opportunity to make progress on this issue 
and I encourage the DOD to make the most of this opportunity. 
Otherwise, I can assure the Department that we will be back with more 
definitive language defining what the Congress believes are appropriate 
burial honors.
  Many of our services have taken a positive role, and I especially 
commend the Commandant of the Marine Corps who issued a white paper on 
funeral support. General Krulak, to his credit, says we can and we will 
honor current and former marines.
  I ask unanimous consent that his white letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        White Letter of 12-02-97

     From: Commandant of the Marine Corps.
     To: All General Officers, All Commanding Officers, All 
       Officers in Charge.
     Subject: Funeral Support.

       1. This past January, I signed ALMAR 003-97 which 
     emphasized the Marine Corps' commitment to funeral support. 
     Properly laying a fallen Marine to rest is one of the final 
     tributes that the Marine Corps can render to our own. This 
     service provides comfort to grieving families and 
     demonstrates our wholehearted and enduring commitment to 
     those who have earned the title ``Marine.'' Unfortunately, I 
     continue to receive letters and E-mails from family members, 
     disappointed that the Marine Corps failed to support them 
     during their hours of need. I am appalled, dismayed, and 
     outraged that I continue to receive these letters. Failing to 
     provide funeral support to a Marine, for whatever reason, is 
     completely contradictory to our ethos and diminishes the 
     value of our fallen comrades' service.
       2. Specific guidance for funeral support is contained in 
     MCO P3040.4D. The Marine Corps Casualty Procedures Manual, 
     and reemphasized in ALMAR 003-97, Military Funeral Support. 
     While I understand that an individual unit may not be able to 
     support every funeral request, I cannot imagine our precious 
     Corps ever turning down the request to properly bury a fellow 
     Marine. If your unit cannot provide a funeral detail, find 
     one that will.
       3. I want my intent and guidance to ring loud and clear 
     concerning funeral support to families of Marines and former 
     Marines--it is our duty and we would have it no other way! 
     Anything less is UNACCEPTABLE. I expect this guidance to be 
     disseminated to every Marine Corps command, inspector-
     instructor staff, recruiting station, and administrative 
     detachment. Ensure that all units are fully aware of my 
     feelings on this matter and they uphold the long tradition of 
     properly honoring a fallen Marine.
                                                      C.C. Krulak.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, he says:

       Properly laying a fallen Marine to rest is one of the final 
     tributes that the Marine Corps can render to our own. This 
     service provides comfort to grieving families and 
     demonstrates our wholehearted and enduring commitment to 
     those who have earned the title Marine. Unfortunately, I 
     continue to receive letters and E-mails from family members, 
     disappointed that the Marine Corps failed to support them 
     during their hours of need. I am appalled, dismayed and 
     outraged that I continue to receive these letters. Failing to 
     provide funeral support to a Marine, for whatever reason, is 
     completely contradictory to our ethos and diminishes the 
     value of our fallen comrades' service.

  General Krulak goes on to say:

       I want my intent and guidance to ring loud and clear 
     concerning funeral support to families of Marines and former 
     Marines--it is our duty and we would have it not other way! 
     Anything less is unacceptable.

  These are very powerful words and I commend General Krulak and the 
Marine Corps for making this a priority issue. General Krulak has taken 
our objective from the very beginning of this effort and turned it into 
Marine practice each and every day.
  Is it really too much to ask of our country that we do a better job 
remembering those who answered the call to duty, risked the ultimate 
sacrifice, and paved the way to the peace and prosperity we all enjoy 
today?
  Until very recently, I doubted the DOD's sincerity in this effort. We 
do have a long way to go on this issue, I do think it is important to 
acknowledge that progress has been made in recent months on this issue. 
Of course, the Marines are taking a leadership role. But it should also 
be noted that Army and Air Force are taking positive steps on the 
burial honors issue. This progress is the direct result of pressure 
from the Congress, from our veterans, and from the families of veterans 
who fought for burial honors.

[[Page S7060]]

  My amendment is an opportunity to build upon this progress. It's a 
step forward but I remind my colleagues that we cannot address this 
issue in steps alone. We need to move quickly, and that's what we are 
asking the Department of Defense to do.
  I ask the Senate to accept this straightforward amendment. By 
adopting this amendment and holding the Department of Defense 
accountable, the Congress will send a powerful message to veterans that 
their service to us all will never be forgotten.
  Mr. President, I know that this amendment has been accepted by both 
sides. I thank all of my colleagues for working with us. We are 
directing the Department of Defense to return definitively, quickly to 
us with a response to this before it is too late.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Mikulski as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished 
Senator from Washington in offering this amendment requiring the 
Department of Defense and the Veterans' Administration to sit down with 
the Veterans Service Organizations to find ways to honorable pay our 
last respects to our nation's veterans. Six months after enactment of 
this legislation, DoD will submit to Congress a report noting changes 
in DoD's policies for burial honors and recommendations for possible 
legislation to address this problem.
  Why is this needed?
  Let me tell you. Veterans across the country are dying. These are the 
men and women who have sacrificed so much for our country. How do we as 
a nation pay our final respects--many times with one person with a 
folded flag and a tape of taps. With World War II veterans growing 
older, the problem will only get worse.
  Even around Washington, DC, with its many military bases this 
happens.
  This is not uncommon. The father of one of my staff members passed 
away a few years ago on the West Coast. She thought that since he was a 
World War II veteran, he would receive an honor guard--an appropriate 
thank you for the service he had given our country.
  What happened? As the family members watched, a member of the 
military--one member came and handed over a flag. There was no honor 
guard, no bugler, no final send off for a job well done.
  My staff person was shocked at the insensitivity and the impersonal 
nature of the burial service. I am shocked as all of us should be.
  This is a disgrace.
  Earlier this year Senator Murray, Senator Sarbanes and myself 
introduced legislation that required a five person honor guard with a 
bugler. DoD opposed the legislation because of the potential costs and 
drain on our military personnel.
  Mr. President, although I understand DoD's arguments, something must 
be done. This amendment moves the ball forward but it does not solve 
the problem. I expect in DoD's report realistic suggestions on solving 
this problem. One person and a tape of Taps is not an alternative.
  In closing, I would like all of us to think about the honor that our 
country bestows on our veterans and the honor they deserve. An honor 
guard is the last instance that we as a nation can thank them for their 
service.
  They deserve no less. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I offer my very strong support to my 
colleague from the State of Washington and commend her for her efforts 
on behalf of our Nation's veterans. What we are dealing with is really 
an unacceptable situation. Families across the nation have come to 
expect and depend on having a proper military burial for their loved 
ones who have served in our Armed Forces. This is simply not happening. 
I joined earlier with the Senator from Washington and the Senator from 
Alaska, Senator Murkowski, in introducing legislation to in effect 
mandate a solution to this problem.
  This amendment--and I think this is a commendable effort on the part 
of my distinguished colleague from Washington--will direct the 
Department of Defense, working with the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
to convene a summit and identify the means and manpower to meet this 
need. Senator Murray has put this process on a very tight timeframe. 
The Department has a 6-month period in which to come up with a plan to 
take care of this problem.
  I have received letters that would move you to tears in terms of the 
importance that families place on providing a proper burial for their 
loved ones who have served in our armed services. Not every family 
requests these honors. But for those families who seek a military 
burial and have it incorporated into their burial plans, this is an 
extremely important matter.
  These military honors, honoring the sacrifice that members of armed 
services have made for this country during their lifetimes, should 
always be a high priority, I think, on behalf of the Congress and on 
behalf of the Department. Unfortunately, this problem has not been 
recognized as such until now--due to the tremendous outcry that this 
situation be addressed. And Senator Murray has undertaken to make these 
burial rites a priority in a very positive and constructive and 
forthright way.

  I am very pleased that the managers of the bill have agreed to accept 
this amendment. I think that through the process it establishes we will 
be able to work to a solution. That is my expectation and hope, that we 
will now, in effect, by requiring the executive branch to focus on this 
problem, come together to give it the kind of high priority study which 
we think it requires and that they will come up with a solution.
  We are constantly told the Department is in favor of our goals and 
objectives in this regard, so we want it now to work out the means to 
achieve these goals and objectives. I think the amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from Washington will move us very much down that 
path and help to accomplish that purpose. I very strongly support her 
efforts.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member for yielding time.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute, if I may.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank the Senator from 
Washington for her persistence, her constancy, and the way in which she 
has gone about trying to make sure that the families of veterans, in 
their grief, have a bit of a reminder of the dedication and the 
commitment of those veterans. The honors that we should be providing 
these veterans and their families are important. They are particularly 
important at a time of grief.
  The Senator from Washington is determined, with the support of many 
of us, including the Senators from Maryland, to have the Defense 
Department make this happen and make this work. And I just want to 
thank her. There are a lot of families who will never know her name, 
but because there will be honors at funerals where they are requested, 
they will in fact have been served by her efforts here on the floor. I 
want to thank her for them as well as for many of us.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from 
Washington for offering this amendment and being willing to compromise 
on this important situation. And I urge adoption of the amendment, if 
it is in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All debate time has expired. The question is 
on agreeing to the amendment No. 3005.
  The amendment (No. 3005) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 2794

  (Purpose: To repeal the restriction on use of Department of Defense 
                       facilities for abortions)

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2794 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.

[[Page S7061]]

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

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Ms. 
     Snowe, Mr. Robb, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Kerrey, 
     Ms. Moseley-Braun and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2794.

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

       At the end of title VII add the following:

     SEC. 708. RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS POLICY REGARDING 
                   RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   MEDICAL FACILITIES.

       Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking out subsection (b); and
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking out ``(a) Restriction on 
     Use of Funds.--''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Before I speak on this amendment, let me again thank my 
colleagues for their help on the Veterans Burial Rights Act. This is an 
important personal issue for me, and I know it is for many families 
across the country who will be waiting for the DOD report. And I will 
be working with all of you on whether or not we receive that report in 
a timely manner.
  Mr. President, the amendment that I have just called up is again to 
the Department of Defense authorization bill, and it is an effort to 
protect the health and safety of our military personnel and dependents 
who are stationed overseas.
  Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to urge my colleagues to 
support the Murray-Snowe amendment which ensures that female military 
personnel and female dependents are not subjected to substandard care 
while serving our country.
  The Murray-Snowe amendment is very simple. It would allow female 
military personnel and female dependents access to abortion-related 
services at their own expense--at their own expense--at military 
hospitals or medical facilities. Our amendment guarantees that women do 
not surrender their rights to a safe and legal abortion because they 
are serving our country overseas. Our amendment also ensures that women 
in the military have access to the full range of reproductive health 
services.
  The current Department of Defense restrictions that deny women access 
to safe and legal reproductive health services is not only inhumane, it 
jeopardizes their lives. This is a women's health issue, plain and 
simple. That is probably why the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists supports this amendment. The Murray-Snowe amendment has 
also been endorsed by the American Medical Women's Association, the 
American Association of University Women, the American Public Health 
Association, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
  Mr. President, I recently received a statement from an active-duty 
member of the Air Force stationed in Japan which summarized her 
experience with seeking safe and legal reproductive health services. 
Her supervisors were of little or no help when she notified them that 
she was pregnant. They offered no assistance, and they made character 
judgments. It was only her doctor, a military doctor, who stepped in 
and tried to help her. Because his hands are tied, due to DOD policy, 
he could only give her information on locally available abortion 
services.
  This is a woman who is serving our country, and she is told she is at 
the mercy of the host country. For no other procedure or life-
threatening illness would we allow the Department of Defense to turn 
military personnel out onto the streets of their host country. But that 
is what we are allowing for women.
  This is what this particular servicewoman faced. She was given a 
hand-drawn map with the location of three hospitals that perform 
abortions. When she arrived at the hospital, none of the nursing staff 
spoke any English. She had no Japanese friends who could translate, and 
the Air Force could not provide any assistance. If she had been 
arrested for armed robbery, the Air Force could have been of more help 
to her.
  The doctors in the hospital had limited proficiency in English, and 
one could not even tell her what medication he was giving her. 
Obviously, there was very little concern about possible reactions to 
the medication. She was totally at the mercy of these doctors in the 
host country.
  Her experience was humiliating and frightening. As she stated in her 
letter--and I quote--

       Although I serve in the military, I was given no 
     translators, no explanations, no transportation, and no help 
     for a legal medical procedure . . . The military expects 
     nothing less than the best from its soldiers and I expect the 
     best medical care in return. If this is how I will continue 
     to be treated as a military service member by my country and 
     its leaders, I want no part of it.

  Opponents of the Murray-Snowe amendment will argue that Federal tax 
dollars should not be used to provide abortion-related services. I am 
sure their arguments do not hold up under scrutiny.
  Our amendment simply restores previous policy--previous policy--that 
allowed female military personnel to pay for abortion-related services 
at their own expense at our military hospitals. They had to pay for 
this expense. The hospital or outpatient facility already has to be 
maintained for the safety of our troops. The cost of operating the 
facility is already a given. The soldier or dependent would pay for any 
possible added cost of providing this service.
  Does she pay for the electric or water bill for the facility? No, of 
course not. And this is where opponents argue that Federal funds are 
being used to provide abortion-related services. That, I would say to 
my colleagues, is a real stretch.
  What opponents do not point out is that under existing policy, if a 
woman feels confident enough to discuss a very private, personal matter 
with her commanding officer and to request a temporary leave, the 
military will fly her back to the States or any other location so she 
can receive a legal and safe abortion. They will pay to transport her 
halfway around the world if she sacrifices her right to privacy and 
subjects herself to character assaults and judgments.
  Instead of receiving care at a military hospital on base at her 
expense, the military will incur thousands of dollars in costs to 
transport her to safety. This may be why the DOD supports this 
amendment. They recognize the costs involved in the current policy as 
well as the threat to the health and safety of our soldiers.
  One has to think that maybe opponents of the Murray-Snowe amendment 
are really trying to just humiliate women or jeopardize their health 
and safety. It cannot be that they are concerned about military 
personnel performing abortions when they object. All branches of the 
military have included in their code of conduct language allowing for a 
conscience clause for military doctors. They cannot be forced to 
perform an abortion if they conscientiously object.

  During debate on this authorization bill, I heard many of my 
colleagues talk about the quality-of-life needs for our soldiers, the 
need to ensure that our troops receive the support that they deserve. 
This should be the same standard afforded women soldiers. This is a 
basic quality-of-life issue. Access to a full array of clinical 
services for women goes to the heart of quality of life.
  I ask my colleagues to join us in support of our service personnel 
who so proudly serve our country and ask only for our support and 
assistance. This is not about publicly financed abortions; this is 
about protecting the health and the safety of military personnel and 
their families who are stationed overseas.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND. 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.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine such 
time as she desires.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington, 
Senator Murray, for taking the leadership on this issue once again. I 
am sure she

[[Page S7062]]

shares my disappointment that we are even in the position we are in 
today that we have to offer this amendment. That this amendment is even 
necessary is regrettable. We will continue to offer it because we think 
it is important to make sure that women in the military have access to 
health care treatment, as well as their spouses and dependents of 
military personnel who are stationed overseas. Therefore, we will 
continue to offer this amendment to ensure that there is equal access 
to the high level of health care that the women who serve in our 
military have earned and deserve.
  We are here today, once again, because U.S. law denies the right to 
choose to the dependents of more than 227,000 service men and women 
stationed overseas, and it denies the more than 27,000 servicewomen who 
have volunteered to serve their country access to safe medical care 
simply because they were assigned to duty outside this country.
  I do not understand, Mr. President, why we insist on denying these 
women and the families of our Armed Forces their rights as Americans. 
We ask a great deal of our military personnel and their families--low 
pay, long separations, hazardous duty. When they signed up to serve 
their country, I do not they believe they were told they would have to 
leave freedom of choice at ocean's edge. It is ironic that we are 
denying the very people we ask to uphold democracy and freedom the 
simple right to safe medical care.
  The New York Times summed it up several years ago when they noted:

       They can fight for their country. They can die for their 
     country. But they cannot get access to a full range of 
     medical services when their country stations them overseas.

  The Murray-Snowe amendment would overturn the ban and ensure that 
women and military dependents stationed overseas would have access to 
safe health care. And I want to clarify that overturning this ban will 
not result in Federal funds being used to perform abortions at military 
hospitals. Federal law has banned the use of Federal funds for this 
purpose since 1979.

  From 1979 to 1988, women could use their own personal funds to pay 
for medical care they needed at overseas military hospitals. As we 
know, a new policy was instituted in 1988 that prohibited the 
performance of any abortions at military hospitals, even if paid for 
with personal funds.
  I should reiterate this point because I think it clearly is an 
important one. It is not the use of Federal funds or any public moneys; 
in fact, it is the use of one's own personal funds for this procedure.
  As Senator Murray illustrated, what are the choices for women who are 
stationed overseas and have to make a very difficult decision as to 
whether or not to have an abortion? She must either find the time and 
money to fly back to the United States to receive the health care she 
seeks or else possibly endanger her own health by seeking one in a 
foreign hospital whose quality of care cannot compare with ours. Or she 
may have to fly to a third country--again, where the medical services 
do not equate to those available at the base--if she cannot afford to 
return home.
  When people sign up for the service, we assure them that we will do 
our best to provide for them and their families as part of the 
arrangement that we make in return for their willingness to serve our 
country. Yet we prohibit women from using their own money to obtain the 
care they need at the local base hospital. They are all alone in a 
foreign country, facing a very difficult, wrenching, personal, 
difficult decision, and all we can say is, ``Sorry, you are on your 
own.''
  The amendment that Senator Murray and I are offering here today is 
only asking for fair and equitable treatment. It says to our service 
men and women and their families: If you find yourself in this 
difficult situation, in order to ensure you receive safe and proper 
medical care, we will provide the service if you pay for it with your 
own money.
  I happen to believe we owe it to our men and women in uniform, and 
their families, the option to receive the care they need in a safe 
environment. They do not deserve anything less.
  I think it is really unfortunate that we are faced with this 
situation year in and year out in seeking what is equitable treatment 
for women who are serving in our military. Fourteen percent of the 
military is now represented by women. They vote, they pay taxes, are 
protected and punished under American law. They are serving in our 
military to protect the ideals and rights that this country represents.
  Whether we agree with abortion or not, we all understand that safe 
and legal access to abortion is the law of the land. It is a choice and 
it is a right that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. This ban 
takes away a fundamental right of personal choice for them. I don't 
believe we should create a dual standard because one happens to serve 
in the military and happens to be stationed abroad. You have that 
choice in America. You have your choice of facilities within your own 
State. You can go where you want to make that decision to have access 
to that legal medical procedure. But when you are stationed abroad, it 
is another matter in terms of receiving the quality care that women 
deserve. They may well be required to travel to another country, not 
facing the same medical standards that one is accustomed to here in 
this country.

  This ban puts women at risk. It puts their health at risk and it puts 
their life at risk, because they may well be forced to seek unsafe 
medical care in other countries where the blood supply may not be safe, 
procedures are antiquated, equipment may not be sterile. I don't 
believe that, in addition to the sacrifices that people in the military 
already make, they are now required to add unsafe medical care to the 
list.
  I happen to believe that the Department of Defense in this country is 
required to give the same kinds of options and access to quality 
medical care. In fact, it is a constitutional right for women to have 
this choice, whether they are serving in the military or not serving in 
the military. Back in 1992, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in 
the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It said that Government 
regulation of abortion may not constitute an ``undue burden'' on the 
right to choose abortion. An undue burden is defined as having the 
``purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a 
woman seeking an abortion.''
  Well, certainly a combination of military regulations and practical 
hurdles means that a pregnant servicewoman who needs an abortion, who 
makes that very difficult decision, may face lengthy travel, serious 
delays, high expenses to fly her home, substandard medical options, and 
restricted information. Therefore, in my opinion, the ban appears to 
unconstitutionally burden the right to choose of American servicewomen.
  So for all of these reasons, Mr. President, I hope that this body 
will do the right thing here today and overturn the ban that currently 
is in the statute so that it allows women to have the option to make a 
safe choice for herself and her well-being.
  Again, I should remind this body that it isn't a requirement that we 
now have to use Federal funds to pay for abortions. In fact, to the 
contrary, it allows women to use their own personal funds for that 
option--a decision they may have to make if they are stationed overseas 
in the military. At one time in our history, they had that option. But 
now, in the last few years, they have been denied that choice. I don't 
think it is right or fair to women who serve in our military.
  I urge this body to adopt the Murray-Snowe amendment.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
during the quorum call be divided equally between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S7063]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to speak in opposition to the 
Murray-Snowe amendment and give a little bit of history. It is not the 
first time we have visited this amendment. In fact, we have been 
debating it each year, I believe, since I have been in the Senate. So 
we are not plowing any new ground here. We are replowing old ground. 
Nevertheless, it is an important issue.
  On the amendment that has been offered, I think it is important that 
Members understand the current state of play and understand what it is 
we are voting on. Some history can perhaps help.
  Mr. President, let me inquire as to how much time is remaining on 
this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-two minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to be notified when 10 minutes 
have been used. I don't believe I will use more than that.
  Mr. President, since 1979 the Department of Defense has prohibited 
the use of Federal funds to perform abortions except in cases of rape, 
incest, or to protect the life of the mother. The bill before us today, 
the Department of Defense bill, continues that prohibition. When we 
debated this issue last year, it was abundantly clear that the current 
restriction was not onerous. It did not put any women at risk. It is a 
policy which is fair. It was fair and sound last year and was supported 
by the Congress, and it remains fair and sound today.
  What we are trying to do is maintain a consistency in Federal policy 
relative to abortion. That policy, described as ``the Hyde amendment,'' 
states that taxpayer money should not be used against the wishes of 
taxpayers for elective abortions except in some very limited 
circumstances--exceptions are allowed in the cases of rape, incest, and 
the life of the mother. But beyond that, the Congress has consistently 
supported prohibitions against the use of taxpayer dollars to perform 
abortions. That is something that has been upheld by the Court. It is 
constitutional. The case of Harris v. McRae upheld the Hyde amendment. 
It did not find a constitutional right to require the taxpayers to fund 
abortions. So I don't believe the Constitution is an issue here.
  Time and again we have disallowed the use of Federal funds for 
abortions, except in cases where, as I said, rape, incest or life of 
the mother is at issue. We are trying to maintain that policy. That was 
a policy that was maintained without problem until 1993 when President 
Clinton issued an Executive order to reverse the policy. Rather than go 
through the Congress and have the people exercise their will through 
their elected Representatives, the President just simply issued an 
Executive order, saying, ``I don't like the current policy that 
Congress has established, and I am going to override it with an 
Executive order.'' Under that policy, the President's change in policy, 
defense facilities were used for the first time in 14 years, not to 
defend life, as our military hospitals are charged to do, but to take 
life, and to do it with taxpayer funds.
  In 1995, the House and the Senate voted to override the President's 
Executive order, reversing that policy and making permanent the ban on 
the use of Department of Defense medical facilities to perform 
abortions with the exceptions of rape, incest, and endangerment of the 
mother's life.
  So again we are today debating that issue. The amendment before us 
would strike that ban and reinstate the policy instituted by the 
President through his Executive order that the Senate overturned 3 
years ago. Proponents of the amendment argue that abortions under the 
Clinton order did not involve use of taxpayer funds since servicewomen 
are required to pay for their own abortions. But, Mr. President, that 
statement evidences a misunderstanding of the nature of military 
medical facilities.
  Military clinics, unlike the private hospitals, receive 100 percent 
of their funds from Federal taxpayers. Physicians are not private 
physicians who happen to be contracting with the hospital, but they are 
physicians that are government employees paid entirely with tax 
revenues. All of the operational and administrative expenses of 
military medicine are paid for by taxpayers. All of the equipment used 
to perform abortions is purchased at taxpayers' expense, and, 
therefore, it is impossible to separate out that which is Federal funds 
utilized for abortion from that which is private funds.

  The only way to protect the integrity of these taxpayers' funds and 
the integrity of the policy is to keep the military out of business of 
performing abortions. Taxpayer money should not be used if it goes 
against what I believe and I think the Congress has supported, the 
moral and religious beliefs of the taxpayer, and in this case the 
taxpayer, through their Representatives, elected to Congress have 
expressed time and again that they don't feel their tax dollars are 
appropriately used to perform abortions.
  The question is raised: If abortions are disallowed, does that not 
put those servicewomen who are seeking to have an abortion at risk? It 
does not. As we have repeatedly demonstrated and said, along with 
certification from the Department of Defense, nothing in this policy 
dictates the decision of the woman, whether or not she wants to have an 
abortion or has an abortion. It simply says you can't use taxpayer 
funds for an abortion. Because of the commingling of funds and the 
impossibility of separating funds, we don't want to use military 
hospitals for that abortion. But nothing prevents that woman from going 
outside of the military hospital facility to utilize another hospital 
in countries where there are those hospitals. Because the law of the 
country--say Italy--does not allow abortions or support abortions; the 
military has provided transport for that individual who seeks the 
abortion. There has never been a complaint filed about inability to go 
and have that abortion.
  So I think Members confuse the issue sometimes when they come to the 
floor without having heard the debate and say, ``This is a vote on a 
woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.''
  I have strong and deeply held feelings about that. We have debated 
that issue on this floor time and time again, and we will debate it 
more--the nature and the meaning of life, the right of the unborn 
versus the right of a woman, and the decision in terms of whether one 
right has a preeminence over another right. But that is not what is at 
issue here today, and it shouldn't be confused in this debate. The 
issue is not over whether a woman has the right to an abortion. That is 
a debate for another day.
  The issue is whether that abortion should be partially paid for by 
taxpayer funds, or performed at military hospitals. We have a policy in 
place that allows women who seek to have an abortion while they serve 
in the military, or their dependents, to have that abortion. Nothing 
prohibits them from doing that. But we simply have to have a policy 
that says that cannot be performed in a place where taxpayer funds are 
being used to accomplish that, or at least to accomplish part of that.
  We have not received any evidence that indicates that this is a 
prohibition on women, on their ability to have an abortion, to make a 
choice to have an abortion. It simply retains a policy that has been 
consistently upheld by this Congress and by the Court that says that 
the taxpayer has a right to put limitations on whether or not their 
taxpayer funds are used to provide abortions. The Congress has 
consistently voted to uphold that policy. They make what I think are 
legitimate and reasonable exceptions in cases of rape, cases of incest, 
and cases of where the life of the mother is in danger.
  So I hope that Members would see this issue for what it is--not a 
women's right to choose; we can discuss that at another time--but 
whether or not taxpayer funds should be used to perform abortions.
  Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time. In fact, I 
see the Senator from Idaho is on the floor. I would be happy to have 
the chairman yield him whatever time he desires.

[[Page S7064]]

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 8 
minutes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, thank you very much. I thank the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and also Senator Coats for 
the particular comments he has made.
  Mr. President, I have been the chairman of the Military Personnel 
Subcommittee for the past two years, and in that time I have learned 
the subcommittee itself cuts a wide swath on all the issues that we 
deal with. This subcommittee resolves issues that are at the forefront 
of our national debate. We cope with the issues of values taught to our 
young people who volunteer for the armed services. We deal with the 
issues involving gender-based training, sexual harassment in the 
workplace, drug and alcohol abuse, and now, as a result of this 
amendment before the Senate, the very sensitive issue of abortion.
  Senators should know that this amendment is not a new issue. Last 
year the Senate extensively debated this issue, and defeated it on a 
48-51 vote. I trust that the Senate will again defeat this amendment.
  My record on the issue of abortion is clear. Abortion is the most 
emotional, complex and personal issue before us today. Personally, I 
believe abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest or 
when the life of the mother is in danger. In addition, I have 
consistently stated my belief that federal funds should not be used for 
abortions. In this regard, I have voted to maintain the Hyde Amendment, 
which bans federal funding of abortion except in cases where it is made 
known to appropriate authorities that the abortion is necessary to save 
the life of the mother or that the pregnancy is the result of rape or 
incest.
  I make it very clear at the outset what this issue in this particular 
amendment is not about. It is not about whether you are pro-life or 
pro-choice. This amendment is about where those abortions may be 
performed and whether they are paid for at Federal Government expense. 
This amendment would repeal the prohibition on using Department of 
Defense facilities for abortions and allow prepaid abortions to be 
perform in these taxpayer-funded facilities and by Federal medical 
personnel at these facilities.
  The sponsors of this amendment argue that without this amendment, 
women in the Armed Forces stationed overseas may find it difficult to 
have access to a safe abortion. As a result, this interferes with their 
constitutional right to an abortion, so they contend.
  I want to acknowledge that women who are in the Armed Forces and are 
stationed overseas in countries where abortion is not legal, are faced 
with complex emotional and difficult decisions. I note for the record, 
however, that a woman with a pregnancy who is in the armed services who 
is overseas and that pregnancy is medically life-threatening or the 
result of rape or incest, under current policy, can receive an abortion 
at a U.S. military hospital.
  But there is no getting around the fact that the Department of 
Defense military hospital are paid with 100 percent taxpayer dollars. 
The medical facility is paid for with taxpayer money. The doctors and 
the nurses are Federal employees, paid with taxpayer dollars. So is the 
equipment, the overhead, the operating rooms, et cetera.
  Even though the pending amendment contemplates that women will be 
allowed to use personal funds to pay for an abortion, there is no 
getting around the fact that taxpayer dollars would still directly or 
indirectly pay for an abortion. So this amendment, if adopted, could 
lead to situations where taxpayers are paying for abortions, which is 
contrary to our national policy as outlined in the Hyde amendment. That 
is inconsistent with our national policy.
  To summarize, I would like to make a few important points on why I 
oppose this amendment.
  First, I believe it is accurate to state that our national policy, as 
reflected in legislation adopted by this Congress and signed into law, 
as embodied in the Hyde amendment, in essence states that we will not 
use Federal taxpayer money for abortion except in the case of rape, 
incest, or the life of the mother.
  Second, In 1980 the Supreme Court ruled on Harris vs. McRae, in which 
the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde amendment.
  Third, Congress, the President and the Supreme Court have set and 
affirmed the national policy that we not use Federal money to fund 
abortions except in those cases that I cited.
  Fourth, The Defense Department in their own analysis has said it 
would be an accounting nightmare to go through and determine the true 
cost of having an abortion performed in a U.S. medical facility when 
the facility is 100 percent taxpayer funded. All of the personnel, 
equipment and facilities are paid for by the taxpayers.
  Fifth, Current policy allows for a female member of the military 
service, in the event she chooses to have an abortion, to have access 
to military transportation so that she can go to a facility of her 
choice and exercise her constitutional right. Any military personnel 
has access to military transport on a space-available basis. The DOD 
has never had an instance where a woman who was seeking access on a 
space-available basis on military transport has been denied that 
because the purpose of her transport was for an abortion.
  Sixth, If a female member of the military service was in a life-
threatening situation, an abortion could be performed at a US military 
hospital overseas.
  So I believe the current abortion policy at US military hospitals is 
consistent with over all national policy.
  Mr. President, I conclude by just stating I have the utmost respect 
for Senator Murray and Senator Snowe, the two Senators who have offered 
this amendment. I work with Senator Snowe on the Military Personnel 
Subcommittee. She does an outstanding job. What a great addition she is 
as we deal with these issues dealing with our armed services.
  I also affirm this significant fact: We could not operate as the 
leader of the free world without women in the military. We must have 
these outstanding, dedicated individuals as part of our military 
installations. I believe that the policy that is on the book does 
affirm certainly their constitutional rights, but it also affirms the 
national policy which I have stated, and it provides opportunities for 
them to exercise that. And in the case where it is life threatening, 
they certainly have the means with which they can deal with it in an 
appropriate fashion consistent with, I think, the caring of all human 
beings.
  So with that, Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend Senator Coats for the 
excellent remarks he made on this subject. I also wish to commend 
Senator Kempthorne for his outstanding remarks.
  Mr. President, I will have to oppose this amendment. There have been 
some good points mentioned by those who favor the amendment, but I do 
not think it is wise. It is one that we have debated several times on 
the floor of the Senate.
  The current law prohibits abortions from being performed in military 
facilities except in the case where the life of the mother would be in 
danger or in the case of rape or incest. The Congress enacted the 
current legislation in 1995 and reaffirmed it again in 1996 and in 
1997.
  In 1996, this same amendment passed the Senate by a voice vote after 
the motion to table failed. However, in order to achieve agreement with 
the House of Representatives in the conference, the conferees were 
required to return to the current provisions of law. Last year, this 
same amendment failed to achieve Senate approval.
  Mr. President, I would suggest that extended debate on abortion 
within the Senate is unlikely to change any Senator's vote. I hope we 
can agree to limit the discussion and vote.
  The question comes down to this. This is the question, and I would 
like

[[Page S7065]]

for Senators to listen to this: If you want to have abortion on demand 
performed in military treatment facilities overseas at the expense of 
the Government, then this amendment is for you. If you want to preserve 
the life of the baby except in the case of rape, incest, and when the 
life of the mother is at risk, then you should vote against this 
amendment.
  It is just that simple, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to defeat 
this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. President, I just make several observations in response to some 
of the comments that have been made here this afternoon. First and 
foremost, this doesn't cost a single cent to the Federal Government. 
When we hear about the fact, well, it is going to cost some money 
because of the use of the hospital, the use of medical personnel, I 
think we all recognize the rates that are charged by hospitals today. 
They set a rate, they set a cost, a charge for recovery of all of the 
costs. The fact is, under Medicare and Medicaid, we reimburse hospitals 
and providers for a specific cost. So are we saying that we are not 
able to create a charge for that particular procedure and in this case 
the option to have an abortion? I doubt it.
  Obviously, the charge that is set is the recovery of all of the 
costs, all of the overhead. Hospitals all across America and throughout 
the world set that rate. So this doesn't cost a dime of taxpayers' 
money--not a dime. I think it is an important point to emphasize, that 
no public funds are used; it is only personal funds.

  Second, it has been mentioned: What is the law of the land? Row v. 
Wade is the law of the land, and it includes the constitutional right 
for a woman to have an abortion, to make that decision, to make that 
very difficult personal choice. And, in fact, between 1973 and 1988, it 
was permissible for a woman to have this procedure done at military 
hospitals, and between 1993 and 1995 the same was true. Unfortunately, 
in the years in which it wasn't allowed, we were denying a woman's 
right. Unfortunately, it got embroiled as to whether or not you were 
pro-life or pro-choice.
  That is not the issue here. It should not be the issue. The issue 
should be whether or not a woman who serves in the military, who has an 
overseas assignment, has access to the same health care as everyone 
else who serves in the military--in this case, with an abortion 
procedure, using her own personal funds. That is the issue here. That 
is why this right was allowed between 1973 and 1988 and between 1993 
and 1995. It was permissible because it is the law of the land for a 
woman to have the right to choose.
  The fact is, because she goes across the border of the United States, 
she all of a sudden loses her right to make this decision and is denied 
access to quality care. So, that is the issue here today. It is not a 
question of using public funds, because that is not what this amendment 
is all about; it never has been. It is a question of whether or not a 
woman in the military who is assigned overseas is going to be treated 
differently, treated as a second-class citizen, being the victim of a 
double standard because individuals have differences over whether or 
not women in America have a right to choose.
  Because she is in the military, because she is assigned overseas, she 
should not be treated any differently and she should not be required to 
leave those rights behind.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support the 
amendment offered by Senator Murray. This provision would take the long 
overdue step of repealing the current ban on privately-funded abortions 
at U.S. military facilities abroad, so that women in the armed forces 
serving overseas can exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed right 
and have safe abortion services.
  This is an issue of fundamental fairness for the women who make 
significant sacrifices to serve the nation. They are assigned to 
military bases around the world to protect our freedoms, and they serve 
with great distinction. It's wrong to deny them the kind of medical 
care available to all women in the United States. They should be able 
to depend on their base hospitals for all their medical services.
  It is not fair for Congress to force women who serve overseas to face 
the choice of accepting medical care that may be of lower quality or 
else returning to the United States and for the care they need. Without 
good care, abortion can be a life-threatening or permanently disabling 
procedure. This danger is an unacceptable burden to impose on the 
nation's servicewomen.
  Congress has a responsibility to provide safe alternatives in these 
situations. Opponents of this amendment are exposing service women to 
substantial risks of infection, illness, infertility, and even death. 
The amendment does not ask that these procedures be paid for with 
federal funds. It simply asks that the appropriate care be made 
available. It is the only responsible thing to do.
  In addition to the health risks of the current policy, there is a 
significant financial penalty on servicewomen and their families who 
make the difficult conclusion to have an abortion. The cost of 
returning to the United States from far-off bases in other parts of the 
world to obtain adequate care can often involve significant financial 
hardship for young women. This is a cost that servicewomen based in the 
United States do not have to bear, since non-military hospital 
facilities are readily available.
  If military personnel cannot afford to return to the United States on 
their own for an abortion, they will often face significant delays 
waiting for military transportation. The health risks increase each 
week, and if the delays in military flights are long, a woman may well 
decide to rely on questionable medical facilities overseas. As a 
practical matter, women in uniform are being denied their 
constitutionally-protected right to choose. A woman's decision on 
abortion is a very difficult and extremely personal one. It is unfair 
to impose an even heavier burden on women who serve our country 
overseas.
  Every woman in America has a constitutionally-guaranteed right to 
choose to terminate her pregnancy. It is time for Congress to stop 
denying this right to military women serving abroad. It is time for 
Congress to stop treating service women as second-class citizens. I 
urge the Senate to support the Murray amendment and end this flagrant 
injustice under current law.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by Senators Murray and Snowe. I am proud to be a cosponsor of 
this amendment.
  This amendment states Senate support for providing access to 
reproductive services for military women overseas. It repeals the 
current ban on privately funded abortions at US military facilities 
overseas.
  I strongly support this amendment for four reasons. First of all, 
safe and legal access to abortion is the law. Secondly, women serving 
overseas should have a full range of medical services. Thirdly, this 
amendment protects the health and well-being of military women. 
Finally, we should not deprive military women from legal medical 
procedures.
  It is a matter of simple fairness that our servicewomen, as well as 
the spouses and dependents of servicemen, be able to exercise their 
right to make health care decisions when they are stationed abroad. 
Women who are stationed overseas are totally dependent on their base 
hospitals for medical care and should not be denied abortion services 
when confronted with an unintended pregnancy. Most of the time the only 
access to safe, quality medical care is in a military facility. We 
should not discriminate against female military personnel just because 
they are stationed overseas. They should be able exercise the same 
freedoms they enjoy at home. Without this amendment, military women 
will continue to be treated like second-class citizens.
  It is ridiculous to think that a woman cannot use her own funds to 
pay for access to safe and quality medical care.
  The current ban on access to reproductive services is yet another hit 
on Roe v. Wade. It is an attempt to cut

[[Page S7066]]

away at the constitutionally protected right of women to choose. It 
strips military women of the very rights they were recruited to 
protect. Abortion is a fundamental right for the women in this country. 
It has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court.
  Let's be very clear on what we are talking about here today. We are 
talking about the right of women to obtain a safe and legal abortion 
paid for with their own funds. We are not talking about using any 
taxpayer or federal money. We are not talking about reversing the 
conscience clause. No military personnel will be compelled to perform 
an abortion against their wishes.
  This is an issue of fairness to the women who sacrifice every day to 
serve our nation. They deserve the same quality care that women in 
America have access to each day. I urge my colleagues to support this 
important amendment to the 1999 Department of Defense Appropriations 
Bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, what is the status of the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 5 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Maine has 5 minutes 46 seconds remaining.
  Mr. THURMOND. How much time is left on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 5 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time on our 
side to the able Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I believe we will be able to yield back 
time. I don't know that we have any other speakers here. Let me just 
quickly summarize the reasons, the basis of why we oppose the 
amendment.
  I believe the amendment is a solution in search of a problem. There 
is no identified problem with women in the military or their dependents 
seeking the right to have an abortion of their choosing when there 
simply is a provision in current law which states on this issue the 
military is not going to decide whether or not that woman should have 
an abortion.
  We simply are saying that we want to uphold the policy that has been 
in place now for nearly 20 years, with the exception of the President's 
overturning it for a 3-year period, that says the taxpayers' funds 
should not be used to perform abortions or to pay for any portion of 
abortion except in certain limited cases --the case of rape, the case 
of incest, or where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
  Because of the nature of military hospitals, they are 100 percent 
funded with taxpayer funds, including all their equipment, all their 
facilities, and all their staff. Military doctors are Government-paid 
employees. Mr. President, 100 percent of their pay is from the 
taxpayer. So it is impossible to utilize military hospitals without 
using taxpayers' funds. Even if the woman pays for the abortion, the 
equipment will be used, facilities will be used, Government employees 
will be used. So we are simply saying to that woman who seeks an 
abortion, we would like you to go outside the military health care 
system to have your abortion. Since you are paying the cost anyway, it 
is not a question of affordability.
  Then the question arises, What if facilities are not available 
outside of military hospitals? The military has recognized this is a 
possibility. It is not a problem at all at any U.S. base, military 
institution, nor in many foreign institutions. But there are certain 
countries that have bans on abortions being performed in their country 
on the basis of that country's policy. The military, in that instance, 
has said we will make space available on air transport for these women 
to go to a place where the abortion is legal.
  So, I don't understand what the problem is. And, rather than overturn 
a law which has been upheld by both the courts and enacted by this 
Congress again and again and again--the Hyde language--it seems the 
best way to proceed is to leave the current policy that has been 
endorsed in place and defeat this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the current law, to vote against the 
Murray-Snowe amendment, again, because there is no identifiable problem 
to which this amendment seeks to advocate a solution.

  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think we are ready to yield back time. 
There does not appear to be any other speakers. We can move to the next 
amendment or vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COATS. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield back the remainder of time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. There has been no 
rollcall requested.
  The Chair asks if anyone wishes to order a rollcall vote on the 
pending Murray amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3009

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Murray-Snowe 
amendment is now set aside and the Senator from Nevada is recognized to 
offer his amendment.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on my behalf 
of myself and my colleague Senator Bryan, the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. 
Inouye, Senator Wyden, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator Durbin, 
Senator Murray, and Senator Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. Bryan, 
     Mr. Inouye, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Murray 
     and Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 3009.

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

       On page 347 strike line 21 through line 13 on page 366 and 
     insert the following:
       (f) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--Section 2205 of the 
     Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 
     is repealed. This section shall take place one day after the 
     date of this bill's enactment.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, all Senators in this body who have a 
military installation in their States should be concerned if my 
amendment does not pass because, in effect, what this language that I 
am trying to have stricken today does is guarantee the future of 
Mountain Home Air Base. That is what this is all about. This 
enlargement is simply to stop there being a further round of closures 
that affects Mountain Home Air Base.
  This amendment would prevent the unnecessary expansion of Mountain 
Home Air Base. This is a training range, an Air Force range in Idaho. 
Since 1991--in fact, since the early 1980s, the Air Force has sought to 
expand the training areas used by pilots operating from Mountain Home 
Air Base in southern Idaho.
  These training areas are made up of the airspace over the Owyhee 
Canyon lands and range from southern Idaho to eastern Oregon and 
northern Nevada.
  First of all, let me talk a little bit about the Owyhee Indian 
Reservation. This is a Shoshone Paiute Tribe consisting of a little 
over 2,000 members. The area that they were placed by the Federal 
Government is an area that is beautiful, but very stark and cold. Many 
times during the winter, you will find the coldest place in the United 
States is the Wild Horse Reservoir located some 20 miles below the 
reservation. This is a very cold place. But in spite of it being cold 
about 9 months out of the year, it is a beautiful place.
  The Owyhee--O-W-Y-H-E-E--Reservation also has running through it the 
Owyhee River. This is one of the most beautiful areas anyplace in the 
United States.
  How did the name Owyhee originate? If you ask one of the Indians from 
the reservation, they will tell you it is very simple. Last century, 
some trappers from Hawaii came to trap on the river in the area. They 
were never heard from again. No one knows what happened to them. From 
that time forward, this whole area has been known

[[Page S7067]]

as Owyhee, a derivation of a Hawaiian name--O-W-Y-H-E-E--Canyon. The 
lands range from southern Idaho, eastern Oregon, northern Nevada.
  The Air Force is saying this will improve their ability to train at 
this range. They are saying it is inconvenient for them to have to fly 
to Utah, to Oregon and Nevada to train. That is just a way of trying to 
establish an air base that won't be taken away in the future. There is 
no reason to enlarge this air base; none whatsoever. The longest flight 
they have to take now to do their training in Nevada, Utah or one of 
the other bases in the area is about 40 minutes. It doesn't seem like a 
very long time. If, in fact, we are able to have our amendment adopted 
by this body, they will still have to fly to these areas. So this does 
not take away the necessity of having to have their pilots fly to other 
areas to train.
  Why is this language in the defense authorization bill which will 
expand the training range and associated airspace? It is not about 
training and readiness. That is taken care of. This is about base 
realignment and closure. This is about something we call BRAC. This is 
about almost $32 million being used to buy BRAC insurance for Mountain 
Home Air Force Base in Idaho.
  It seems somewhat unusual to me that in this bill we are fighting to 
have money for projects that are extremely important for the readiness 
of the military. It seems real unusual to me and most everyone else who 
looks at this as to why we have to spend $32 million of money that we 
don't have and can't afford to enlarge a base that shouldn't be 
expanded.
  It is about trying to make Mountain Home too attractive to close, 
while other bases in other parts of this country are closing. It should 
come as no surprise that this range expansion is not needed and is a 
waste of taxpayers' money.
  Mr. President, let me read from an Air Force audit report. This is an 
audit report of the inspector general of the Department of Defense 
verbatim:

       The Air Force has not . . . proved why existing training 
     ranges cannot continue to provide composite force training. 
     Establishing the Idaho Training Range would be an exception 
     to the overall DOD attempt to downsize infrastructure.

  I continue the quote:

       The Assistant Secretary asserted that Saylor Creek can 
     support day-to-day training performed by the composite wing. 
     In summary, the Utah, Nellis and Fallon ranges are suitable 
     for composite force training and the ranges have the required 
     airspace and ground areas. During our audit, the 336th wing 
     officials--

  That's Mountain Home----

     stated that all the training requirements were being met with 
     the Saylor Creek range and the Utah, Nellis and Fallon 
     ranges. Our review showed that the capabilities of the Utah 
     range satisfy the currently described training quality 
     attributes applicable to the 366th. The Air Force chief of 
     staff, plans and operations, has acknowledged that the ITR 
     was not necessary for composite force training. The deputy 
     chief of staff stated that using existing assets, the wing 
     has trained adequately and has become combat ready. It seems 
     very clear and unambiguous.

  Mr. President, further, a draft audit from the inspector general went 
on to say:

       The Air Force's proposed Idaho Training Range is an 
     unwarranted duplication of existing DOD tactical training 
     ranges. Also, the Air Force cost-benefit analysis to justify 
     the Idaho Training Range is not valid. We attributed these 
     conditions to the State of Idaho's efforts to influence the 
     fiscal year 1995 base closure selection process and an 
     eagerness by both Air Force and Idaho officials to establish 
     the training range.
       Therefore, the Air Force and the Idaho Air National Guard 
     will unnecessarily spend $35.4 million.

  Which has been cut down a few million.
  Further, Mr. President, a Department of the Air Force memorandum from 
assistant inspector general of auditing a couple years ago states:

       The draft report is largely devoted to establishing what 
     the Air Force has long acknowledged--the State's proposed 
     Idaho Training Range is not a necessity for composite wing 
     training in Idaho.

  That is really it. There is no reason to have it. There is no request 
for it. The reasons haven't changed since the inspector general made 
his report.
  In this same audit, the Secretary of Defense asserted that the 
existing range can support the day-to-day activities that are 
necessary. Even the Air Force stated that the ``Air Force has long 
acknowledged the State's proposed Idaho Training Range is not a 
necessity. . ..''
  What does this unwarranted duplication of existing assets cost? 
Almost $32 million for an expansion the Air Force admits is not 
necessary, even as the Secretary of Defense calls for another round of 
base closures just to make ends meet.
  We also have another very unique land policy issue, and that is, 
there is a cowboy whose statements I have read. He doesn't want to 
leave his ranch and is not going to have to leave his ranch. But about 
5 percent of his many thousands of acres are going to be taken by the 
Air Force.
  In compensation for this, he is going to get anywhere from $250,000 
to $1 million. I must say, Mr. President, this is the first time that 
the land managers are aware of ever paying anybody for a privilege. 
That is, people who have grazing lands have the privilege of grazing 
cattle on those lands. Why should we pay somebody for that privilege? 
It seems it should be the other way around.
  In addition to that, this gentleman is being compensated for water 
lines that he has put in, fencing he has put in and also he is going to 
be guaranteed makeup for the grazing lands that are taken from him. It 
seems like a pretty good deal to me, that he, in effect, loses nothing 
but makes anywhere from a quarter of a million to a million dollars.
  The Bureau of Land Management does not recognize these lands as being 
available for sale or in need of compensation.
  This is simply wrong.
  Let's talk about the environment, the wildlife and also about Native 
Americans. There are many reasons to oppose it. I have outlined a 
number of them already. It is an unnecessary expansion of the base 
because the Air Force doesn't need it. It is unnecessary compensation 
to a rancher, a cowboy in the area. But, these Owyhee lands are far 
more than just a target for Air Force bombers or a dumping ground for 
Air Force chaff.
  The Owyhee Canyon lands provides some of the most pristine, rugged 
and spectacular country in the West. Let me show you some of the areas 
along the Owyhee. It is a beautiful area. It is called the next Grand 
Canyon or the ``Grand Canyon of the North.'' It is just picturesque any 
time of the year, and this is going to be impacted significantly as a 
result of the language that is in this bill.
  Recently described as the ``other Grand Canyon'' in a prominent 
western magazine, the Owyhee Canyon lands are a vast network of river 
canyons, plateaus; this is the largest undeveloped area in the lower 48 
States.
  This is a mecca for those who seek to escape the daily clutter of 
civilization. I repeat, these canyonlands are the largest undeveloped 
area in the lower 48 States. And, Mr. President, these canyonlands 
offer an unmolested remnant of nature. This is what it is like. Tens of 
thousands of people go there every year--41,000, to be exact, the last 
count that we had. And they are going to be devastated as a result of 
this area being used for low-level bombing by airplanes, low-level 
training by airplanes.
  Mr. President, Owyhee is the traditional homeland for the tribes of 
the Shoshone-Paiute. They have significant religious and cultural 
interests which must be protected from encroachment and desecration. 
Here, Mr. President, is some of the petroglyphs that are existing. They 
are all over this area.

       To us, the ashes of our ancestors are sacred, and their 
     resting places are hallowed ground. Our religion is in the 
     traditions of our ancestors, the dreams of our old men given 
     them in solemn hours by night, by the Great Spirit, and the 
     visions of our chiefs. And it is written in the hearts of our 
     people.

  Chief Seattle is the one who said that.
  Mr. President, shouldn't the Native Americans have been part of this 
deal? Do they deserve to be ignored? They live in a very remote part of 
the United States, one of the most remotely settled areas in the entire 
United States. And they have been ignored.
  And as one newspaper reported, it seems rather unusual that there 
would be so much attention spent--and I quote--``It is one thing when 
it's a

[[Page S7068]]

white rancher who is a significant contributor. But if it's the Native 
Americans who are not involved in a commercial relationship with the 
Federal Government, too bad for you.''
  That is from a newspaper article today, an intermountain feature 
exchange from the Idaho Statesman.
  It seems to me that I have no problem with this rancher caring a lot 
about his land. I think what I have heard about him --he has been on 
that land, his family has been on that land since 1880. Mr. President, 
those Indians have been there a lot longer than that. They deserve at 
least the right of somebody to consult with them. And they have been 
ignored. They have written a letter saying they have been ignored, they 
are not part of this concern, and they should have been.
  The canyonlands, Mr. President, offer a safe haven for the California 
bighorn sheep, the pronghorn antelope, elk, deer, and numerous plants 
that will require our attention if they are to survive in the future.
  Here is a picture, Mr. President, of the California bighorn sheep--
one of the most magnificent animals there is. Average life expectancy 
of one of these animals--7 years. In that 7 years, they become a 
majestic animal and can do all kinds of things. They can do all kinds 
of athletic things that are beyond belief. We should do something to 
protect them. And we are not.
  These are lands which are both part of our Western heritage and part 
of our American future. People of the West deserve a voice in how that 
heritage is used and what the future is going to be.
  Today, the people of Idaho, Oregon, and Nevada have been allowed to 
add their voice to the chorus of those opposed to further range 
expansion.
  Mr. President, I think it says a lot when we understand that groups 
are opposed to this. They talk about an environmental impact statement, 
and they have a comment period. The comments were 6-1 opposed to this--
opposed to this.
  Groups opposed to Mountain Home range expansion are: the Shoshone-
Paiute Tribes, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Wilderness Society, the 
Sierra Club, the Idaho Wildlife Federation, Owyhee Canyonlands 
Coalition, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, U.S. Public 
Interest Group, the National Wildlife Federation, the Nevada Wildlife 
Federation, the Idaho Conservation League, Friends of the Earth, The 
Rural Alliance for Military Accountability, the Oregon Natural 
Resources Council, the Idaho Whitewater Association, the Idaho Rivers 
United, the Committee for Idaho's High Desert, the Oregon Natural 
Desert Association, and the Friends of the West.
  The newspapers that are opposed to it, to name a few, are the Idaho 
Statesman, the Idaho Falls Post Register, the Wood River Journal News, 
and the Times-News.
  So I am somewhat concerned that this is in the bill. We recognize it 
is always much more difficult to take something out of a bill than to 
put something in. But we are going to proceed on that basis.
  What is being done here is simply wrong. The act bends the process. 
It fails to address the concerns of the tribe. We have 41,000 annual 
canyonland visitors a year. The agreement is not a product of public 
comment. The public has spoken and has clearly said they do not want 
the range.
  Only yesterday the Idaho Statesman, the leading paper in Idaho, 
reported that ``Congress has a wide variety of reasons to reject the 
proposed training range for Mountain Home Air Base. It should pick one 
and vote no.''

  There are lots of reasons. We only need one of those reasons. There 
are a multitude of reasons. The fact is, the citizens of Idaho oppose 
this expansion 6-1, as I have said before.
  This agreement is the result of an unpleasant compromise forced on 
the BLM as part of a shotgun wedding with the Air Force. For the BLM, 
it was either the language accepted earlier this afternoon, or the even 
more odious agreement which was originally in the bill. And all so 
Mountain Home can enjoy BRAC insurance. This is not the way to craft an 
agreement for the public interest.
  As I have said, Mr. President, the environmental impact statement is 
supposed to protect all parties. It does not. The Shoshone Tribe said 
yesterday:

       The EIS does not even begin to account for tribal concerns 
     and was absolutely insufficient for the purpose of making a 
     decision regarding tribal interests. In fact, the EIS process 
     was detrimental to Tribal archaeological resources because 
     significant vandalism has resulted from the lack of 
     confidentiality provisions in this part of the EIS process.

  That is why the majority of the people in the States of Nevada, 
Idaho, and Oregon oppose this language. The language in the agreement 
which addresses the tribe's sacred sites was never shown to them. Their 
opinion, in this end game, was never asked.
  Consistent with this approach, they are excluded from every decision 
in the process that has been acquired here. This, Mr. President, is 
wrong.
  I am a strong supporter of the men and women in our military. And as 
much as any American, I want to make sure that they have everything 
they need to be prepared to defend our Nation's interests and return 
home safely.
  Mr. President, over half of Nevada's airspace is dedicated to the 
military. Over 50 percent of the airspace over the State of Nevada is 
dedicated to the military. But they want more. They are gluttons, Mr. 
President. They cannot get enough. Over half of the airspace of the 
State of Nevada is already dedicated to the military. And I see no 
reason that there must be more given, more taken.
  The Air Force has not justified its need to spend $32 million. And 
they do not need more airspace. Remember, if they get more airspace, 
they are still going to go to Oregon, still going to go to Utah, still 
going to go to Nevada.
  Mr. President, they are going to come on and say, well, we are only 
going to fly so high or so low. Who is going to enforce that? Who are 
the air police? They do not have them. Anyone who has flown an airplane 
in the military knows those rules are not enforced.
  Look what took place in Italy just a short time ago. That was in 
force because they hit a cable on a gondola at a ski operation. But to 
say we are only going to fly this high or this low is ridiculous. 
Everybody knows there is no way to enforce that.
  The agreement in this bill is stealth legislation. I believe in 
stealth in the military, but not in the legislative process.
  Mr. President, we have numerous letters. I would ask the Chair, how 
much time has the Senator from Nevada used of the 1 hour?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 20 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are numerous newspaper articles from 
all over the country. But let us just focus on a few. Let us talk about 
a newspaper article from Idaho Falls where they talked in the Post 
Register. ``The U.S. Air Force keeps trying to build a new bombing 
range at its Mountain Home base--but it still hasn't got it right.''
  They acknowledge that this is ``the most spectacular canyonlands left 
in North America.'' They talk about certain concessions the military 
has attempted to make.

       But these concessions are irrelevant [though, says the 
     newspaper] when placed next to what the Air Force has in 
     mind. It wants to fly thousands of bombing missions, 
     hammering the countryside. This activity would occur in a 
     countryside where solitude recreation is becoming 
     increasingly popular.
       And it is the home of rare California bighorn sheep, not to 
     mention a rich spectrum of high desert wildlife. Biologists 
     will tell you that bighorn sheep don't schedule their lambing 
     to suit the air force bombing runs. They haven't addressed 
     [the newspaper article goes on to say] the 500 
     archaeological sites in the Owyhee Canyon lands. Some of 
     these sites are the most important to the Shoshone-Paiute 
     Tribe.
  They go on to say, recently as late at 1995, 1996, the Air Force said 
they didn't need the land.
  The Idaho Falls Post Register, again, says, ``You would expect 
something this important''--talking about this legislation--``would 
warrant a separate piece of legislation.'' They go on to say, ``No, it 
is sneaked into an appropriations bill.'' There will be no public 
hearings. The voices of thousands of Idahoans who overwhelmingly 
opposed the Air Force bombing range during a series of forums will be 
silenced. Idahoans won't be able to talk about the loss of solitude in 
an area so popular with fishermen, hikers, and ranchers, and Native 
Americans won't be able to express their concerns, and no Idahoan will 
be allowed to tell the Congress

[[Page S7069]]

that building a bombing range for pilots who already can fly to the 
ranges in nearby Utah is wasting taxpayers' dollars.
  Mr. President, they go on to say ``the politically contrived pack is 
silent about how the Air Force will respect areas in the Duck Valley 
Reservation.'' It gives the Air Force the right to fly twice a month at 
500 feet. The Air Force promises to alert the public in advance--as if 
everybody is standing at attention for this announcement.
  The Twin Falls newspaper says: Why is this training range necessary? 
It is not. It is not as if the new lean and mean Air Force doesn't have 
other options to the west for the composite wing station. At Mountain 
Home, the Owyhee Canyon lands is a convenience, not a necessity. They 
go on to say it is just that in an era where the Federal Government is 
supposed to be trimmed down and subcompact, the proposed Owyhee 
training range seems to be more like a Cadillac hood ornament.
  The Twin Falls newspaper, the Times News: The real issue is, will the 
military be allowed to lock up this irreplaceable gem of God's creation 
for the sake of a shorter commute? Eight years into this debate and we 
still haven't heard a convincing explanation why it should. This is how 
the people of Idaho, the people of Nevada, how the people of Oregon 
feel about this. That is why the groups I have listed--Oregon Natural 
Resources Counsel, the Rural Alliance for Military Accountability, 
Friends of Earth, and dozens of other groups--think this idea is 
scatter-brained and not very wise.
  Mr. President, we have numerous articles. I also state that yesterday 
there was a statement made when there was a perfecting amendment--there 
was, in fact, a photo shown, but the Owyhee Canyon lands photo is a 
photo of the Tules and East Fork of the Owyhee River. The area is not 
covered by altitude restrictions described by the person moving the 
amendment. The restrictions extend upriver to Battle Creek. The Tules 
area is east of this.
  Now public comments. The movement of the perfecting amendment 
yesterday failed to disclose that of the thousands of comments 
submitted, the substance of the comments--I repeat, 6-1, 86 percent are 
opposed to this deal; 86 percent are opposed to the Air Force proposal.
  The tribes weren't at the table; the tribes weren't present at the 
meetings of any of the Senators who moved the amendments. Tribal 
concerns have not been met. The tribes remain opposed. One completed 
study, funded by the Air Force, shows irreversible harm to tribal 
culture by this proposal.
  Mr. President, there is no reason to do this. Rancher Brackett will 
not go out of business as a result of this proposal. The impact of the 
allotment represents 5 percent of his total operation. The intention of 
the amendment, very graciously, is to compensate the rancher for loss 
of grazing allotments and then find replacement allotments of equal 
value. Brackett has an agreement with BLM to commence an environmental 
assessment, confer over 3,000 temporary AUMs--animal unit months--to 
the Juniper area, which would require compensation. It seems unfair and 
unwise.
  Mr. President, training will continue. It is not going to change. 
This is for the benefit of the Air Force, to give them BRAC insurance. 
There is no other reason for this. It is a range of convenience. It is 
detrimental to the environment. If we look to the future, this training 
range is not futuristic, it is something that is looking to the past. 
And certainly, with our constrained budget, and attempting to balance 
the budget, it is unwise. I ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment, to delete this language from the bill, save the taxpayers a 
huge amount of money today and large amounts of money in the future.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Is there a sufficient 
second?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I will address the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields the Senator time?
  Mr. THURMOND. How much time do we have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina controls 60 
minutes in opposition.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator such 
time as he may require.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  I will address a number of the issues that have been raised by the 
Senator from Nevada. He talks about this proposal by the Air Force to 
expand and enhance training at Mountain Home Air Force Base. It is a 
composite wing with F-15s, F-16s, B-1 bombers, C-135 tankers. This is 
unusual, to have a composite wing. They are bedded down so that they 
train as they will fight.
  I think we know we have a troubled world out there. There is no 
longer the other big giant, the Soviet Union. We see the troubling 
headlines every day. It is a composite wing that would get the order--
if we have to go into harm's way, there is a high likelihood they would 
be dispatched from Mountain Home Air Force Base--the finest pilots in 
the world, sending them into harm's way.
  I hope and pray that not only do we provide them the best equipment 
but also the best training opportunities, so that when those men and 
women get into that aircraft, they have every chance and opportunity to 
come back home to their loved ones after accomplishing what the U.S. 
Government sends them to do on behalf of the U.S. citizens.
  The characterization that this is just some guarantee of future 
Mountain Home Air Force Base, is that why this is one of the items in a 
priority of the President of the United States? Is that why the 
Secretary of Interior is part of this process? The acting Secretary of 
the Air Force? The director of the BLM? The director of the Council of 
Environmental Quality? The Secretary of Defense? Are they all in this 
together? Yes, they are, because we want to provide that sort of 
training opportunity for the composite wing.
  It happens to be located at Mountain Home Air Force Base. I serve on 
the Senate Armed Services Committee. I am proud of that assignment. Why 
did we put this legislation, this language from the Department of 
Interior and the Air Force, in the defense authorization bill? Because 
that is where the President puts the funds for the expansion and 
improvements to the training range.
  That seems rather logical to me. Governor Phil Batt, a Republican, 
during his entire term of office, has been working to make this project 
a reality from the State perspective. His predecessor, Governor Cecil 
Andrus, a Democrat, worked diligently and dedicated much of his time to 
bring this about to be a reality. We are finally going to make it a 
reality. Is it a Republican issue? Well, if it is, why is a Democrat 
administration making this such a priority?
  I ask the opponents of this: Have you called your President? Have you 
called your Secretary of Interior? Have you called your Secretary of 
the Air Force? Your director of the BLM? Your director of the Council 
of Environmental Quality? If you have, as I have, I think you will get 
a very clear message that this is a priority and this must and should 
go forward.
  On this idea that, by golly, we have shut everybody out, there have 
been 2\1/2\ years of effort, Mr. President. This is the environmental 
impact statement. Yes, everybody was ``shut out''--16 public hearings 
in 3 different States, over 400 witnesses, and over 1,000 comments are 
included in this. Show me the evidence that they were shut out.
  We talk about the Native Americans. The Senator from Nevada said, 
``Shouldn't they be part of the deal? Why were they ignored?'' Well, I 
would like to, then, reference from the environmental impact statement 
a few of the meetings that were held between the Air Force and 
representatives of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe. I happen to have the 
utmost respect for members of the Shoshone-Paiute tribe. I worked with 
them. A number of them I consider friends. They are wonderful people.

[[Page S7070]]

  A meeting was held on 20 May, 1995; on 20 September, 1995; on 6 
December, 1995; on 21 February, 1996; on 21 May, 1996; on 22 May, 1996; 
on 23 May, 1996; on 28 May, 1996; on 20 June, 1996; on 11 July, 1996; 
on 7 August, 1996; on 22 August, 1996; on 19 September, 1996; on 20 
September, 1996; on 24 September, 1996; on 8 November, 1996; on 9 
December, 1996; on 9 January, 1997; on 22 January, 1997; on 14 March, 
1997; on 9 June, 1997; on 29 July, 1997; on 5 December, 1997; on 10 
December, 1997; on 9 January, 1998; on 13 January, 1998.
  Isn't it a shame that they were ignored. There were 26 meetings.
  In a letter that the tribe sent to the Honorable Rudy De Leon, Under 
Secretary of the U.S. Air Force--included in this letter, Mr. 
President, they referenced the training range. They say, ``In regard to 
the training range, enclosed as an attachment is a map with a shaded 
area running north and west from a reservation. This represents the 
area in which our sacred sites are located and, therefore, the area in 
which we oppose the creation of any training range, whether drop or no 
drop.''
  Included in this letter is this map. Now, I would like to point out 
that here is the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. Here is the Idaho-
Nevada border. This map is the same as right here. They drew the line; 
the Native Americans drew the line and said, ``Stay out of this area, 
please, because we have sacred sites, because this is critical to our 
culture.'' So where is Juniper Butte, the 12,000-acre training range? 
Is it in that area? No. It is right there, right there. But nobody was 
listening. Where is the evidence? Who selected that site--Juniper 
Butte? Did this rancher come forward and say: Federal Government, would 
you please choose this site? No. It was the Bureau of Land Management. 
That was their proposed alternative. They suggested that. After a 2\1/
2\-year process, the Air Force agreed that that is the best site. That 
is where you can do it. BLM recommended it; Air Force concurred. The 
rancher--or the ``cowboy,'' as the Senator from Nevada refers to him--
didn't come forward and say, ``I would like to do this.'' The Air 
Force, from day 1, said they would compensate anybody who was adversely 
impacted.

  There is the land, 12,000 acres. That is where that family, for 
years, has been deriving their living. They put in extensive water 
pipes and fencing in this area. But now, because the Air Force needs 
it, yes, they are willing to be good citizens and say, all right, we 
will no longer utilize it as we have. But isn't it fair that they ought 
to be compensated for the pipelines and the fence, so they can be 
allowed to remain whole? There it is.
  Now, these beautiful pictures of the Owyhee Canyon lands are 
absolutely spectacular. The Senator from Nevada says that citizens, in 
trying to escape the daily clutter, go to these Owyhee Canyon lands. 
That is good. They should come there. They are welcome there. It is 
beautiful. He said that they would be devastated by this decision--
devastated by this decision--because we are going to turn it into a 
bombing range. Over this beautiful, pristine canyonland, do you know 
what the current regulations are? Jets can fly at 100 feet above ground 
level, 100 feet above the canyon rim. With this agreement, they won't 
be able to do that. Right now, they can do that 365 days out of the 
year. With this agreement, during April, May, and June, they can only 
do it Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. So that the recreationalists 
can enjoy the beautiful canyonlands and the water, it is just Tuesday, 
Wednesday, Thursday, not 7 days a week. Incidentally, it is not at 100 
feet above the canyon rim, but 5,000 feet above the canyon rim, if they 
run parallel to the canyons, a mile on each side, 5,000 feet, or 
perpendicular at 1,000 feet. That is what you pick up with this.
  But if you don't like that, then go along with the Senator from 
Nevada and strike the language, and the pilots can again be at 100 feet 
above the canyon rim 365 days a year.
  We talk about sheep that are there; the Air Force provides $435,000 
for 4 years so we can monitor the impact of this, the flights on the 
sheep as well as sage grouse. We have mitigation in place for spotted 
pepper grouse.
  Mr. President, I think we have a good program here. I think we have a 
good project. We talk about the training.
  Again, as members of the Armed Services Committee, we are very 
concerned about training and the amount of time that we can budget for 
our pilots actually to be in the air training--not in transit, 
training. That is the key--training. We have determined that their 
total combat training time more than doubles with this enhanced 
training range--more than doubles. Isn't that what we want for our 
pilots--to be training, so, again, as much as you hope and pray, they 
are not going to have to go into conflict with something crazy that 
happens somewhere in the world? But I will tell you, if they do, I 
don't want to be on the side that denied them the opportunity for 
adequate training.
  This proposal that predates my tenure in the U.S. Senate--it has been 
around many, many years, but it is time to bring it to a conclusion. 
That is what the President of the United States believes. That is what 
the Secretary of the Air Force believes, the Secretary of Defense, the 
Secretary of the Interior, and the Idaho delegation--Senator Craig, 
Congresswoman Chenoweth, Congressman Crapo--Governor Batt. It is time 
to do this and do what is right.
  Mr. President, I think that concludes my remarks at this point. I 
hope I have helped set the record straight.
  I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment offered by the 
Senator from Nevada.
  Again, I remind you that this is not a partisan issue. I call upon my 
friends of the Democratic Party, certainly those on the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, to support this Air Force proposal, to support this 
administration proposal, so that we can do what is right, do what is 
right for the pilots, but do it in a sensitive fashion that is right 
for the environment and which also enhances the opportunities for 
recreation.
  I reserve the remainder of our time and yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. President, Senator Reid's amendment will strike title 29 of the 
Nation's Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. Title 29, if 
enacted, would authorize the land withdrawal for enhanced military 
training in Idaho. That land withdrawal is necessary to ensure the very 
realistic military training of the 366th Wing at Mountain Home Air 
Force Base, ID. The administration has expressed support--I repeat, the 
administration has expressed support--for Senator Kempthorne's 
substitute amendment to title 29 which was passed by a voice vote 
yesterday.
  I strongly support Senator Kempthorne's amendment to title 29 of the 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 and his continued 
efforts to ensure enhanced training in Idaho. As a result, I must 
oppose Senator Reid's amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Idaho indicates that he wants 
to make sure that the pilots don't fly in harm's way. The pilots who 
fly out of Mountain Home are treated fairly. They have all they need to 
be the best that they can be.

  I refer to what the Air Force said themselves. I quote the Air Force 
deputy chief of staff. He acknowledged that ``the Idaho training range 
was not strictly necessary for composite force training.'' The deputy 
chief of staff said, ``The division already met training needs using 
the existing range at Saylor Creek, as well as the ranges in Idaho and 
Nevada.''
  Here is what General Ken Peck had to say, the wing commander: ``We 
are the most combat capable unit anywhere in the world right now.''
  So I don't think we can stretch this by saying that if this amendment 
does not pass, the Air Force pilots are going to be flying in harm's 
way. Quite to the contrary. According to the commander of the 336th 
Wing, ``We are the most combat capable unit anywhere in the world right 
now.'' Why? Because they fly, at the most, 40 minutes to do training. 
They can train at Mountain Home, but at the most, 40 minutes.
  Mr. President, let me also say that I have mentioned a number of the 
environmental groups. Everyone should understand that they haven't had 
many

[[Page S7071]]

environmental votes this year. This is one of them. The League of 
Conservation Voters feels very strongly about this. They have written 
letters. They have done telephone calls. They have sent e-mail. They 
sent faxes. This is something the League of Conservation Voters are 
going to look at very closely.
  Mr. President, has the training of the last 7 years been sufficient 
or inadequate? The Air Force can disagree, as I have already indicated 
from the commander of the base. We must focus on the justification for 
the proliferation of more Air Force space. It is simply unneeded. Is it 
necessary to spend $32 million? The answer is no. We are trying to save 
money, not spend it unnecessarily. As I have said before, this is BRAC 
insurance for Mountain Home Air Base.
  What does the new tribal council say about the sites? They say that 
they have people come to the reservation on many occasions but, of 
course, have not consulted with the tribe. They have come through and 
told the tribe what they are going to do, and that is indicated. It is 
important to do that. They have been ignored.
  The picture that has been shown by my friend from Idaho shows this 
desert area. Mr. President, what do you fly over to get to that? You 
fly over this to get to that. You fly over this land. That is the 
problem. We admit they are not going to be strafing and dropping bombs 
in this area. But they are going to be flying over this to get to the 
other area.
  I repeat: Who is going to be the air police? Are we going to have 
helicopters up there 500 feet, and, if you go below that, you hit a 
helicopter? The answer is no. There is no air police. The airspace is 
violated continually. Anyone who has an airbase in their State knows 
that. These pilots do their best. Sometimes their best is not good 
enough. They must fly over these wilderness areas, these pristine 
areas, to get to the area in the picture my friend showed.
  Mr. President, who called them about the agreement on the sacred 
sites in this bill? The answer is no one. Everybody was shut out over 
the site. The Air Force didn't like what was being said. Remember, we 
talk about thousands, or more, comments--1,000 or more comments, and 86 
percent of them were opposed to it. You can go around and get all the 
comments you want, if you are going to ignore them. That is what was 
done here.
  I admit that taking taxpayer money and spending it unnecessarily is a 
bipartisan objective around here. I agree with my friend from Idaho. 
Money is spent unnecessarily by Democrats and Republicans, and that is 
what is being done here.
  It seems funny, as reported in the Idaho press, that the only person 
being compensated is a caucasian farmer. The Indians who have their 
tribal lands violated, their sacred sites violated, their life 
disturbed, are not getting 5 cents.
  They will be able to fly over Jack's Creek, an area that BLM didn't 
want to give up--270 square miles of pristine land.
  Mr. President, I think the most impressive thing here is how the 
Federal Government has attempted to get insurance. It is not on the 
market in most places. In Congress it is. They can come in here and buy 
BRAC insurance so that next time we do base closings--everybody knows 
Mountain Home just barely made it last time. This is an effort to 
assure that Mountain Home won't close next time.
  I want to make sure, because they are never represented in the halls 
of Congress, or rarely so, and certainly the Owyhee Indians are not 
represented--I want everyone to understand that they feel they have 
been had, that they have not been treated fairly, and they feel their 
lands have been taken from them this time and in the past. In the past, 
we can't do much about that, but we certainly can do something about 
this time.
  This amendment should pass. It is a fair thing to do. It is the right 
thing to do. It is the good thing to do for the military of this 
country. And it is the best thing we could possibly do for the 
taxpayers of this country. Right off the bat, we would save $32 
million.

  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  I say to the chairman of the committee, the manager of the bill, that 
I only have one Senator I know who has indicated he wants to come and 
speak on this issue, and we are making a call. If he does not want to 
come, maybe we can yield back our time.
  Mr. THURMOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, my colleague from Nevada has been 
reading from an inspector general's audit. I believe the date on that 
is 1995. That particular project was the Idaho Training Range. It was a 
previous proposal that was rejected. This was a proposal which then-
Governor Cecil Andrus worked extremely hard to bring about and should 
be commended for that. But again the specifics on that audit deal with 
ITR, the Idaho Training Range, and that is not the proposal before us 
today.
  He references official letters that I think are a couple years old, 
so let me read to you, if I may, a letter from the current Secretary of 
Defense, William Cohen. I will ask unanimous consent that this be made 
part of the record.
  It says:

       Thank you for your letter of September 8, 1997. I want to 
     assure you nothing has changed regarding my enthusiasm for 
     the Enhanced Training in Idaho (ETI) initiative.
       The 366th Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base is an 
     important component of our military capability. As one of the 
     first units to deploy to a problem area, it has the 
     responsibility to neutralize enemy forces. It must maintain 
     peak readiness to respond rapidly and effectively to diverse 
     situations and conflicts.
       ETI balances realistic local training with careful 
     consideration of environmental, cultural, and economic 
     concerns. The elements of the ETI proposal, though designed 
     to minimize environmental impacts, will simulate real world 
     scenarios and allow the aircrews to plan and practice complex 
     missions. In addition to providing realistic training, ETI's 
     close proximity to Mountain Home Air Force Base also will 
     enable the Air Force to convert time currently spent in 
     transit into actual training time. Thus, the ETI proposal 
     allows Air Force crews to use limited flight training hours 
     more efficiently.
       I continue to give the ETI process my full support. It will 
     provide our commanders with realistic training opportunities 
     locally, while ensuring potential impacts to natural, 
     cultural, social, and economic resources are identified and, 
     where possible, cooperatively resolved. Your strong support 
     for the ETI initiative is very important to us, and you may 
     rely upon my continued interest and commitment. I trust this 
     information is useful.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Bill Cohen,
                                             Secretary of Defense.

  I also have a letter dated June 19, 1998, from the Acting Secretary 
of the Air Force, Whitten Peters, as well as the Secretary of Interior, 
Bruce Babbitt. I quote from that:

       Dear Senator Kempthorne: We are pleased to provide you with 
     the attached legislation for the withdrawal of lands for 
     the Enhanced Training in Idaho (ETI) project. As you know, 
     this legislation represents three years of extensive work 
     by the Bureau of Land Management, the Air Force, you, and 
     other representatives of the people of Idaho, and many 
     others who care about the welfare of Idaho's environment 
     and the effectiveness of the 366th Wing at Mountain Home 
     Air Force Base.
       ETI will increase the realism, flexibility, and quality of 
     the Air Force's training. It permits the 366th Wing to train 
     more efficiently and effectively for its important missions, 
     thereby improving the aircrews' safety and mission 
     performance. Implementation of ETI will substantially 
     strength the 366th Wing's ability to ensure readiness to 
     perform its assigned missions.
       Importantly, however, the Air Force and BLM also worked 
     very hard so that ETI would balance training needs with the 
     concerns of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, the environment, and 
     other public land uses. The Air Force and BLM actively 
     solicit public and agency involvement through the development 
     of the project. Participants in the process included the 
     State of Idaho, environmental organizations, the Shoshone-
     Paiute Tribes, ranchers, recreational organizations, and 
     other users of the public lands in Idaho.
       The Air Force incorporated numerous mitigations in the 
     design of the project to address public concerns and 
     relocated facility sites during preparation of the 
     environmental impact statement to avoid various environmental 
     concerns expressed by the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and others. 
     Following completion of the EIS and consideration of public 
     comment, the Air Force adopted further mitigation measures, 
     including altitude and seasonal overflight restrictions

[[Page S7072]]

     that further address concerns of recreational users to 
     protect the habitat of bighorn sheep. The NEPA process was a 
     valuable tool in helping to identify these mitigations and 
     resolve concerns.
       We believe the attached legislation accommodates many 
     issues that you and other representatives of the people of 
     Idaho have raised throughout the process and is an important 
     step forward for national security, for the environment, and 
     for significant tribal interests.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the 
     standpoint of the administration's program there is no 
     objection to the presentation of this report to Congress.
           Sincerely,
     Bruce Babbitt,
                                        Secretary of the Interior;
     F. Whitten Peters,
                                Acting Secretary of the Air Force.

  Mr. President, as noted here, the language which I submitted is the 
administration's language. And I was greatly pleased, and I appreciate 
the statement by the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Levin, when he stated, and I may be paraphrasing, 
that Senator Kempthorne did exactly what he said he would do in the 
Armed Services Committee, and that is that he would come back before 
the Senate and he would provide the perfecting language to this issue. 
It is exactly what I did. And whose perfecting language? It came from 
the administration.
  I know that the senior Senator from Idaho wishes to make comments on 
this, so I will yield the floor and again look forward to comments by 
the senior Senator from Idaho, who has been a great leader on this 
issue as well.
  I make this final thought. It is a public process. In the public 
arena you sometimes get bruised, but there are just groups out there 
that for years have not wanted this project to become a reality, and so 
they will use any handle they can to try to stop it. They have tried a 
variety of things to stop it. Sometimes they questioned people's 
integrity in their efforts to try to stop this. That is real 
unfortunate because I think that is what causes a lot of citizens to 
say ``that's why I don't want to step into the public arena.''
  I think people's reputation and dignity are worth something, and I 
don't think they ought to be trashed just for a political agenda to 
somehow try to stop something.
  So with that, I look forward to the comments by the senior Senator 
from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am here on the floor this afternoon to 
join my colleague from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, to reinforce what 
this Senate agreed to yesterday, agreed to in a unanimous environment. 
What they really agreed to, once the two Senators from Idaho and the 
Idaho congressional delegation had spent over 2\1/2\ years ensuring 
that the public process was fulfilled, they agreed--you agreed, the 
Senate agreed--that the Senators from Idaho, having worked the process, 
deserved to do what was necessary to do to ensure the long-term 
stability of Mountain Home Air Force Base and its expanded mission.
  What did we do? What did Idaho do to ensure that the public lands 
were held in the appropriate esteem, that Native Americans involved in 
this were appropriately addressed, that the mission was fulfilled by 
the expansion of range to the necessary amount?
  We met twice with the BLM and the Air Force and all of the agencies 
involved to assure that they did their homework and that they did it 
right, because several years ago they had not done it right and 
Idahoans reacted, in part, by saying, while we need this training 
range, the process has to be corrected. The process is now complete and 
the process is correct, by every participant's evaluation.
  There are some, like Senator Kempthorne has just spoken to, who do 
not agree with it. But they agree with nothing. They oppose everything. 
Even though they are hard-pressed to admit that there were any failures 
to the process because they were involved, there were, I believe, some 
16 public hearings in the State, a full outreach by the BLM and the Air 
Force, to make sure that this reallocating of land was the right thing 
to do.
  The Duck Valley Indian Reservation--I believe there were 20-plus 
meetings. Let me read a letter that was sent on January 29 by the 
entire congressional delegation to the Shoshone-Paiute tribes of Duck 
Valley Reservation. James Paiva, the tribal chairman:

       Dear Chairman Paiva:
       Today we received the Air Force's final Environmental 
     Impact Statement . . . regarding the Enhanced Training in 
     Idaho . . . project. We also had a meeting with senior 
     Department of Defense, Air Force, Department of the Interior 
     and Bureau of Land Management officials regarding the future 
     steps necessary to develop the ETI.
       Knowing of the tribes' previous concerns regarding the ETI 
     [or the Enhanced Training in Idaho] project, at our meeting 
     today we especially asked about the tribes' position 
     regarding the final EIS. We were assured the Air Force and 
     BLM have made great efforts to accommodate the concerns of 
     the Tribe.
       We want to thank you for your excellent cooperation on this 
     very important project. We urge you to continue to work with 
     the Air Force to develop cooperative solutions to training 
     issues. We look forward to working with you in the future on 
     the many areas of mutual interests we share.

  Sincerely,
     Senator Craig.
     Senator Kempthorne.
     Congressman Crapo.
     Congresswoman Chenoweth.
  The outreach has gone on. The outreach has been complete. I cannot 
stand here today and tell you that all members of the Shoshone-Paiute 
tribe at Duck Valley are satisfied. But we believe that their questions 
and their concerns have been answered and that they agree in general 
that is the case.
  Let me address the environment for just a moment. The Owyhee will not 
be devastated. Neither Senator Craig nor Senator Kempthorne would stand 
or tolerate that, and any suggestion of that is bunk. It is a false 
allegation at the very best. We value our lands and we value their 
beauty--and they are beautiful. As Senator Kempthorne has said, where 
there was once a 100-foot level of flight over areas, which may be 
demonstrated in the pictures standing by the Senator from Nevada, there 
is now 1,000 feet of protection. Where there was an ability to 
continually fly over areas where there are California sheep, there is 
now a limitation during the lambing period. There really isn't anything 
we have not thought of, because we have been consulting for 2\1/2\ 
years with every stakeholder and every interest in this area.
  I am at a loss today to try to understand why the Senator from Nevada 
would want to strike this because we have talked with him. We felt we 
had talked and worked with his people adequately enough to assure that 
all of the concerns were met. Claims that this range is only here to 
BRAC-proof Mountain Home simply are false because Mountain Home was 
never on the list. Why? For a lot of the reasons that Nevada bases have 
not been on lists, because they are away from population centers and 
they have great air time and they are the kinds of bases that the Air 
Force wants for optimum flying. That is why.
  But, for new training missions, looking out into the future, knowing 
how difficult it is to reallocate public lands, Mountain Home and the 
Air Force thought it was time to expand the necessary training ranges. 
It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to fly longer 
distances to train simply because of the consumptive necessities of 
these large aircraft. The closer that range, the easier to train, the 
less need to schedule timing and do all of that type of thing. And that 
is exactly why we worked with the Air Force to do that.

  I hope my colleagues will join with us today in not supporting a 
motion to strike, because I believe the two Senators from Idaho, 
certainly, Senator Kempthorne and myself, have spoken to this issue. We 
knew that there would always be concern about the reallocation of 
public lands and that the process had to be unquestionable. We have 
tracked it. We have detailed it, day to day, week to week, month to 
month, for 2\1/2\ years. Now the administration is in full support of 
it. The administration put it in their budget. The Department of the 
Interior signed off on it. The Air Force signed off on it. The BLM has 
signed off on it. It is in full support.
  So why, today, a motion to strike is beyond me and very frustrating. 
We had hoped this would not have to occur, but apparently it is 
necessary that the Senator from Nevada do this. For that, I am 
disappointed, that it has to happen, because the people of Idaho have 
been addressed in this issue and all of the parties concerned have been 
worked with in a complete manner. We believe it is important that we 
proceed.

[[Page S7073]]

  Let me add just one additional thing. The Senator from Nevada 
expressed concern about the compensation issue for a rancher. I said it 
yesterday. The Senator from Nevada was not on the floor. Let me repeat 
it again today. There is no compensation for this individual rancher. 
There is an assurance, as we require him to move to a new range, that 
the moneys are there to build the pipelines and the water systems and 
the cross-fences to make the new range as productive as the old range 
that is being taken away from him. This rancher and the Three Creeks 
Grazing Association that I am very familiar with--I have been out on 
that range numerous times. I know the canyonlands that the Senator from 
Nevada talks about. I have been there. I have been in them over the 
last good number of decades. But the Three Creeks Grazing Association--
this rancher and others--have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars 
of their own money and time over the last many, many years to make this 
one of the best grazing areas in the State of Idaho. Why? Because they 
can manage their cattle and because they have adequate water systems to 
move from pasture to pasture without overgrazing. As a result, these 
lands have become increasingly productive.
  Something else happens when lands for grazing become increasingly 
productive because of water and because of rest/rotation management 
through effective cross-fencing. The abundance of wildlife increases, 
and there is clear documentation to prove it. Upland game birds, deer, 
and now in Idaho, open range elk have increased in phenomenal numbers--
not because of the absence of management but because of the presence of 
management and because of the kinds of investment that many of these 
ranchers have worked with BLM to make over the years.
  That is the intention we are talking about. Not the full 
misrepresentation in the newspapers that somehow somebody was getting 
paid off. That is simply not the case. I don't think the administration 
would be involved in that kind of a tactic. It is their budget that we 
are dealing with here and the moneys they put in for the purposes of 
these kinds of transitions. That is what we are talking about today.
  We have been fully aboveboard on this with numerous public hearings 
addressing all of the issues. I hope my colleagues will join Senator 
Kempthorne and myself in a motion to table this motion to strike.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to S. 
2057 offered by my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid.
  The Reid amendment would strike from the bill an amendment adopted by 
the Armed Services Committee during its markup of S. 2057.
  That amendment, offered by Senator Kempthorne, would withdraw 12,000 
acres of land from the public domain for use by the United States Air 
Force for a project known as Enhanced Training in Idaho, or E.T.I.
  It would ratify the Air Force's recently announced selection of this 
land--known as the Juniper Butte Range--for addition to an existing 
109,000-acre training range.
  The Air Force plans to invest thirty million dollars to outfit the 
area for training pilots in electronic warfare, tactical maneuvering 
and air support.
  Over the past several years, the Air Force has failed to gain public 
approval of similar proposals to expand its training area in Idaho to 
provide more cost-effective training for pilots at Mountain Home Air 
Force Base.
  These proposals, like the current Juniper Butte proposal, have been 
controversial in large part due to their potential impacts on proposed 
wilderness areas, wildlife, and human populations.
  These impacts--principally from the anticipated increase in air 
traffic and the noise associated with it--are significant and very 
difficult to mitigate.
  Increased air traffic and noise are of particular concern to the 
Shoshone-Paiute tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, which 
straddles the Idaho-Nevada border.
  Low level overflights of the reservation and sonic booms associated 
with the existing Idaho training facilities have long been a source of 
friction between the tribes and the Air Force.
  As a result of litigation brought by the tribe against the Air Force 
over these issues, the tribe and the Air Force entered into an 
agreement concerning training flights in the vicinity of the Duck 
Valley Reservation.
  Regrettably, the tribe currently regards the Air Force as being in 
violation of this agreement.
  It is therefore not surprising that the Duck Valley tribes view the 
Juniper Butte proposal as an additional threat to their culture, 
religion and resources.
  Nevertheless, I would like to commend the Air Force for entering into 
a contract to evaluate the impacts of Air Force activities on the 
cultural practices and sacred sites of the tribes.
  However, my understanding is that these ethnographic studies are 
ongoing, and that we at present do not have the benefits of their 
findings or recommendations.
  Given the difficult history in the relationship between the Air Force 
and the tribe, I question the wisdom and the need to move precipitously 
on the Juniper Butte withdrawal.
  Typically, when a Federal agency announces a record of decision on a 
proposal such as the Juniper Butte withdrawal, other Federal agencies 
have an opportunity to review and comment on it.
  The Department of the Interior, whose Bureau of Land Management 
currently manages the Juniper Butte lands, has a wide array of concerns 
about withdrawing the lands for a bombing range.
  The department has concerns about potential impacts to some 22 
proposed wilderness areas, big horn sheep and other wildlife.
  In addition, as trustee for the Shoshone-Paiute tribes, the 
Department is concerned about the potential impacts that adding Juniper 
Butte to the bombing range would have on the Duck Valley Reservation 
and its people.
  While Interior and Air Force representatives have been meeting in an 
effort to address Interior's many concerns, there has been no effort to 
address the tribal concerns.
  Given the past and present concerns about this matter, it is 
appropriate to ask, ``What's the rush?''
  Why is it necessary to short circuit the normal public process of 
review and comment, of congressional review of a proposal of this 
nature?
  While it may be desirable for the Air Force to provide an additional 
area for training, there is no lack of existing facilities and no 
crisis that requires hasty action by the Senate.
  There have been no congressional hearings on the decision to go ahead 
with the Juniper Butte land withdrawal since the Air Force announced it 
in March of this year.
  Accordingly, the Senate has no record of discussion of the relative 
costs and benefits of the proposal, much less of the need for it.
  Indeed, a June, 1995, report by the Defense Department's inspector 
general concluded that ``establishing the Idaho training range would be 
an exception to the overall DoD attempt to downsize infrastructure''.
  Anyone familiar with my record in Congress knows that I believe in a 
strong national defense.
  I support the desire of the Air Force to have the best possible 
training facilities so that our pilots will remain the very best in the 
world.
  And I have no doubt that the Air Force has labored long and hard to 
address the various criticisms that have been made of its proposals to 
expand its training facilities in Idaho.
  However, I also believe that the Senate has a duty and an obligation 
to be sure that the questions of need, of costs and benefits, have been 
answered fully.
  We also have an obligation to review the adequacy of the measures 
being proposed to mitigate impacts on the environment, wildlife, and 
human populations.
  Until and unless these concerns have been fully addressed, I see no 
compelling reason to go forward with this project at this time.
  Accordingly, I support Senator Reid's amendment to strike the Juniper 
Butte provisions from S. 2057.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Reid 
amendment, which would strike title 29 of the Defense Authorization 
bill, entitled ``Juniper Butte Range Lands Withdrawal.'' Title 29 would 
authorize development of the proposed Enhanced Training in Idaho (ETI) 
project of the Air Force. The ETI involves creation of

[[Page S7074]]

a new Air Force training range covering parts of Idaho, Oregon, and 
Nevada to enhance training for aircrews of the 366th Wing based at 
Mountain Home AFB. The ETI would provide composite force training that 
includes multiple types and numbers of aircraft training together. The 
proposal would allow the Air Force to withdraw 12,000 acres of BLM land 
and associated airspace. Total DoD funding is estimated at $31.5 
million.
  Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues several 
reasons why I feel the Enhanced Training in Idaho proposal lacks merit.
  1. The Air Force has not justified the need for a new training range.
  The Inspector General of the Department of Defense reviewed the Air 
Force's Idaho training range proposal and found that ``the Air Force 
cost benefit analysis that supports the proposal was prematurely 
formulated because of the lack of an overall training plan for the 
366th Wing.''
  The IG audit recommended that the Pentagon ``withhold Air Force and 
Air National Guard funds related to establishing the Idaho training 
range.''
  In his comments to the IG, the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff 
acknowledged that the Idaho training range was not strictly necessary, 
and he stated that existing training resources enabled the 366th Wing 
to meet its training needs and to become combat ready.
  The IG concluded that ``the Air Force has not established the 
training requirement for the 366th Wing composite force or proved why 
existing training ranges cannot continue to provide composite force 
training.''
  The IG further concludes that ``the Utah, Nellis, and Fallon ranges 
are suitable for composite force training and the ranges have the 
required airspace and ground areas.'' During the audit, officials of 
the 366th Wing stated that all training requirements were being met 
with the Saylor Creek Range and the Utah, Nellis, and Fallon ranges.
  2. The ETI proposal is nothing more than a BRAC insurance policy for 
Mountain Home AFB.
  The motivation for this proposal is clear: it lessens the likelihood 
of Mountain Home AFB being included in a future round of base closings.
  Senator Kempthorn was quoted in the Mountain Home News earlier this 
year as saying that the ETI range proposal ``will be a great insurance 
policy for Mountain Home AFB.''
  3. Congress has not had the opportunity to review the proposal.
  Neither the Armed Services Committee nor the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee have held any hearings on this proposal.
  Interested members of Congress and the public should have the 
opportunity to examine this proposal in the context of public hearings.
  In the 99th Congress, hearings were held in both the House and Senate 
on Legislation authorizing the withdrawal of public lands in the State 
of Nevada for training ranges in Fallon and Nellis.
  4. Environmental impacts associated with the proposal have not been 
adequately mitigated..
  A substantial portion of the air space expansion proposed by the Air 
Force is in the state of Nevada.
  The Board of County Commissioners of Elko County, Nevada, has 
expressed its concern with the proposal regarding the impact of 
increased training flights over the Owyhee Canyonlands, which extend 
into Elko County in northern Nevada.
  Less than one-third of the acreage the BLM originally sought to 
protect is covered by the 5,000 foot minimum flight level contained in 
the agreement between BLM and the Air Force.
  The agreements 5,000 foot standard protects less than one-half of the 
wilderness study areas of that region and its archaeological and sacred 
Indian sites.
  It protects less than one-third of the candidate wild and scenic 
rivers.
  Finally, the agreement opens military overflights in the area 
surrounding Little Jacks Creek, which is the only remaining wild area 
in the Owyhees where people and wildlife, including bighorn sheep, can 
enjoy relative peace

  5. Impacts on the Shoshone-Paiute tribes have not been adequately 
addressed.
  The proposal omits any meaningful mitigation measures for the tribal 
members residing on the Duck Valley Reservation
  The language of the proposal pays only lip service to the importance 
of preserving access to and use of Indian sacred sites
  6. The compensation provisions for ranching operations is a taxpayer 
boondoggle.
  The proposal contains a lucrative compensation package for one 
rancher that currently has a federal grazing permit on the 12,000 acres 
targeted for the range
  It has been reported that the grazing permit involves 1,059 AUM's--an 
AUM is currently valued at $1.35--which would mean that the permittee 
is currently paying approximately $1,429 per year for his privilege to 
graze cattle on public land
  It has also been reported that the agreement between the Air Force 
and the permittee involves a buy out of all or a substantial portion of 
this grazing use at the rate of $250 per AUM, which equates to a total 
payment of $264,750; in addition, the Air Force has agreed to 
compensate the permittee for the replacement costs associated with 
constructing new range improvements on other grazing land
  The vast discrepancy between what this rancher has paid for his 
privilege to graze on public land and what he is being paid to relocate 
his grazing operation sets a dangerous precedent that should alarm the 
American taxpayer
  Mr. President, for the reasons stated above, I urge my colleagues to 
support the Reid amendment.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Oregon was coming to 
the floor to speak, but there is an illness in his family, and he will 
be unable to come.
  What we have to understand is why, if the previous information that 
they had given to the Senate regarding the audit was not accurate, why 
wasn't another audit done?
  The electronic range that is being talked about here is essentially 
the same, although it has shifted a little to the east. Both proposals 
feature supersonic operations, low-level flight, flare and chaff and 
composite force exercises over vast areas of public lands.
  The generic components of the electronic battlefield and bombing 
range have been juggled around geographically in the airspace, but have 
remained essentially the same and are designed to support the same kind 
of training which has been judged to be redundant by the Department of 
Defense inspector general in the audit report.
  There has been some talk that the tribe has been consulted many 
times. This is what the tribe says:

       The EIS does not even begin to account for tribal concerns 
     and was absolutely insufficient for the purpose of making a 
     decision regarding tribal interests. In fact, the EIS process 
     was detrimental to Tribal archeological resources because 
     significant vandalism has resulted from the lack of 
     confidentiality provisions in this part of the EIS process.

  The tribe doesn't like this deal. They don't like it in one respect, 
two respects; they don't like it in any respects.
  My friend, the senior Senator from Idaho, says this has nothing to do 
with BRAC insurance. I only refer to the junior Senator from Idaho in a 
speech where he said, it was reported in the Mountain Home News earlier 
this year:

       The range will be a great insurance policy for Mountain 
     Home Air Force Base.

  That is a quote. ``The range will be a great insurance policy for 
Mountain Home Air Force Base,'' Mountain Home News, February 25, 1998.
  The Owyhee Canyon Lands Coalition, speaking for all the environmental 
groups, said:

       We have always considered the electronic warfare range to 
     be at least as objectionable as the Juniper Butte target 
     site.

  We have heard talk on the floor that there is no compensation 
involved. All you have to do is read from the language of the bill that 
we are trying to have stricken:

       The Secretary of the Air Force is authorized and directed 
     upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary considers 
     just to conclude and implement agreements with the 
     permittees--

  Of course, there is only one--

     to provide appropriate consideration.


[[Page S7075]]


  I have not practiced law in a number of years. I am a lawyer, and I 
know consideration means compensation. That is what the bill says.
  I talked about the Air Force really having quite an appetite. They 
have about 50 percent of the land in the State of Nevada. Here is what 
they have in the State of Utah, which is 175 miles from Mountain Home. 
How long does it take those jets to go 175 miles? You can figure it 
out. Not very long. Ten minutes? Fifteen minutes? Half hour? The north 
range is about 175 miles from Mountain Home and consists of 350,000 
acres of land for exclusive DOD use. They are begging for business. 
They want Mountain Home to come and fly there. It has all kinds of 
great craters and a helicopter air-to-ground complex. It has everything 
they need for this composite wing in Utah.

  They have Nellis, a large base. I say to my friend from Idaho, the 
senior Senator, the Nellis Air Force Base range is one of the best in 
the world, if not the best, but Nellis Air Force Base is right in the 
middle of town. It is not rural Nevada. It is right in the middle of 
Las Vegas. You can fly from there over the great range. They can go 
over to Fallon, a great training facility which they use all the time.
  The extension of this base is unnecessary. Based upon the statements 
made by Commanding General Ken Peck who is, remember, the commander of 
the 336th: ``We are the most capable combat unit anywhere in the world 
right now.'' It doesn't mean after they get these additional acres. It 
means they are the most efficient, the most capable combat unit 
anywhere in the world right now.
  I say to my colleagues, this legislation is important. This amendment 
is important. This is what the taxpayers put us here to do: to save 
money. By voting yes on this amendment--no on the motion to table--you 
will be saving this Government $32 million to begin with, and allowing 
in the future the necessary consideration to go forward as to whether 
or not this base should be closed. This is fair to the Native Americans 
who have been ignored in this process. It is fair to the taxpayers, and 
certainly fair to the environment and the people who support the 
environment. This is a vote that will be scored by a number of 
environmental organizations, as well it should be. This is an important 
environmental vote. It is an environmental vote, I think, for setting 
the tone for this Congress.
  I say to the manager of the bill, I don't know if my two friends from 
Idaho have more to say. Otherwise, I will be happy to yield back time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I believe we have made our case. We have had a good 
debate. We are ready to yield back our time. At the appropriate time, I 
will move to table.
  Mr. REID. I yield back the time of the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I yield back my time, and I move to table the Reid 
amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will be postponed.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes 
ordered with respect to the pending amendments be stacked to occur at 
4:30 p.m. I further ask that the first vote occur on, or in relation 
to, the Murray-Snowe amendment, followed by a vote on, or in relation 
to, the Reid amendment, which is a motion to table, with 4 minutes for 
debate equally divided prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I make this inquiry of the Senator 
from Nevada. In looking at his legislation and reading it, he states in 
section ``(f) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--Section 2205 of the 
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 is 
repealed.''
  My question is with regard to ``fiscal year 1997,'' since that is the 
previous year, if, in fact, this should read ``fiscal year 1999.'' If 
there is a need to make a correction here, I have no objection, because 
I don't want to have any parliamentary excuse used. I would like to 
have a fair vote here. So, again, I make this inquiry as to whether or 
not this should be 1997, or in fact should be 1999, or in fact the year 
2000.

  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Idaho, this is right out of the 
bill. The bill says, ``1997,'' so maybe we should take a look. There 
might be something wrong with the bill, because the bill says, 
``1997.''
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Again, Mr. President, I appreciate that. We noted 
that. We wanted to make sure there was nothing to stand in the way of 
us having a vote on this issue before us.
  Mr. REID. So, Mr. President, I say to my friend from Idaho, if there 
is something wrong, it is because the original text is wrong. We will 
take a look at that before the vote. If it needs to be corrected, we 
will stipulate that.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleagues, the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina and the Senator from Michigan. And I realize they are waiting 
for a couple of amendments to come over and be dealt with on this bill. 
So as soon as I see someone walk in with an amendment, I will truncate 
these remarks so as not to interrupt. I know they have the important 
business of the Department of Defense authorization bill.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dodd pertaining to the introduction of S.2224 are 
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2794

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of amendment No. 
2794, the amendment we will be voting on. I understand I have 2 minutes 
and the opposing side will have 2 minutes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the Murray-Snowe amendment. This is a very simple amendment that 
restores the right of our women and family members who serve overseas 
in the military to have access to health care services to which they 
ought to have access.
  Current law in the DOD bill says that a woman who would like to have 
health care services relating to an abortion would have to ask for 
permission from her commanding officer to have the military pay for her 
transport home to the United States in order to get health care 
services. This amendment simply allows that woman to pay for--out of 
her own pocket, not at our expense--that service in a military hospital 
where she is serving overseas.
  Mr. President, this amendment is a safety issue for our women and 
families of personnel who serve overseas. During the course of the 
debate, I talked about a letter written to me by a woman who was 
serving in Japan who had to go to a hospital in Japan where they did 
not speak English. She did not know what kind of medication she was 
receiving. Her health care was at risk. She wrote to us seriously 
questioning whether she would remain in the military after being 
treated like this.
  This is a service that is legal here in the United States. Women who 
serve in

[[Page S7076]]

the military and families of military personnel should have equal 
access. We are not asking for any taxpayer expense. We are simply 
allowing women who serve in the military, or families of those who 
serve in the military, to pay for abortion-related services out of 
their own pocket, in a safe military hospital overseas.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I thank Senator 
Snowe for her continued help on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2794.
  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 Delaware (Mr. Roth) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is 
absent due to death in the family.
  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 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) would vote no.
  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 44, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 176 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Glenn
     Hutchinson
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Specter
  The amendment (No. 2794) was rejected.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3009

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Under the 
previous order, there is 4 minutes of debate equally divided on the 
Reid amendment, No. 3009. However, that 4 minutes will not commence 
until the Senate is in order.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is an amendment sponsored by Senators 
Reid, Bryan, Inouye, Wyden, Kerrey of Nebraska, Durbin, Murray and 
Feingold.
  What this is all about is inserted in this bill is something called 
BRAC insurance to prevent the Mountain Home Air Base from in the future 
being closed. That is all this is.
  It will cost the Government $32 million unnecessarily. You compensate 
a rancher for the first time in the history of this country for having 
a privilege. The Government is paying somebody for using our land, in 
effect. Environmentally, every group in America is opposed to what is 
in this bill that we are attempting to take out.
  The Indians' rights have been stomped upon. There are environmental 
impact statements out there--86 percent of the respondents were opposed 
to this. Every newspaper in the State of Idaho is opposed to what they 
are trying to accomplish; Oregon, Nevada is against it. This is 
something that is unnecessary. It is a range of convenience.
  I read from the Idaho Statesman newspaper:

       So the question is: Should taxpayers spend $30 million to 
     build another range and risk losing more high desert 
     wilderness so the Air Force can save a few million in fuel, 
     maintenance and operations costs for training out of the 
     state?
       The answer is no. It's not an acceptable trade-off. The 
     area is far more valuable for its natural resources--
     especially since the Air Force has shown its range 
     proposal to be only convenient, rather than undeniably 
     essential for national security or pilot safety.

  To show how unnecessary this is, I refer to General Ken Peck, the 
commander of the 366th Wing, which is this Mountain Home Air Base 
commander. ``We are the most combat-capable unit anywhere in the world 
right now.''
  This is not needed. I ask my colleagues to oppose this motion to 
table for the taxpayers of this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Idaho is recognized. The Presiding Officer is aware that 
there are important conversations and negotiations underway relative to 
the disposition of this bill. The Chair asks that those conversations 
be taken from the well so everybody can hear the Senator from Idaho.
  The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, this project is a project of the U.S. 
Air Force. It is supported by the President of the United States, 
Secretary of the Interior, the Director of BLM, Katie McGinty, Counsel 
for Environmental Quality to the President. Here is the 2\1/2\-year 
process, the environmental impact statement.
  I hope Senators had an opportunity to listen to the debate we had 
earlier. We were able to refute everything said by the Senator from 
Nevada.
  I urge everyone to vote to table this motion.
  I yield the remaining time to the chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I support Senator Kempthorne and will vote 
to table the Reid amendment. Senator Kempthorne's provision will 
protect the environment while providing the Air Wing at Mountain Home 
Air Force Base with more realistic training facilities.
  Please note this: The administration supports the compromise in the 
bill. In fact, the administration wrote the language offered by Senator 
Kempthorne. Secretary Babbitt and Secretary Cohen have both sent 
letters of support, as has the Acting Secretary of the Air Force.
  The compromise language ensures that our environmental laws will 
fully apply to Air Force activities at the Juniper Butte Range. This 
includes the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered 
Species Act.
  The concessions made by the Air Force with respect to airspace flight 
restrictions near the range will reduce the noise in the canyon. 
Instead of flights at 100 feet at any time, the flights are now 
restricted to 3 days per week and this raises the minimum altitudes 
from 100 feet to 1000 feet or 5,000 feet depending on the flight angle 
to the canyon.
  The Kempthorne amendment provision protects the environment and 
national security. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Kempthorne.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the motion to table 
Amendment No. 3009, offered by the Senator from Nevada. 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 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

[[Page S7077]]

Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 177 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Glenn
     Hutchinson
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Specter
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3009) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         Contingency Operations

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia, I offered an amendment incorporated into this 
bill requiring the President to explain to Congress the goals and 
potential endpoint of any military contingency operation involving more 
than 500 troops. Our provision furthermore mandates this report 
whenever the administration submits a budget request for the operation.
  During its June 9th Executive Session, the Armed Services Committee 
unanimously approved this amendment, and I am grateful for the eloquent 
expressions of support made by Senators Thurmond and Levin.
  The Snowe-Cleland amendment, Mr. President, received the Committee's 
broad endorsement regardless of our differences over the scope and 
purpose of U.S. contingency operations because Senators from both 
parties agree that the administration must express its mission 
objectives in tandem with a funding request.
  The President, however, has ignored this obligation in seeking funds 
to sustain our units in Bosnia. By the end of Fiscal Year 1999, the 
administration will have budgeted an estimated $9.4 billion for our 
participation in the Bosnia Stabilization Force since the completion of 
the Dayton peace accords. But it has never offered us a comprehensive 
readiness and mission assessment of U.S. Contingency Operations 
(CONOPS) policy to justify the expenditure of these funds.
  Our amendment, therefore, mandates a dual report on the ``clear and 
distinct objectives'' that ``guide the activities of United States 
forces'' as well as the proposal of an approximate date, or set of 
conditions, ``that defines the endpoint'' of a contingency operation.
  Congress, Mr. President, needs more constructive guidance in advance 
from the administration as the era of peacekeeping claims billions of 
dollars in funding that might otherwise go to core readiness and 
modernization programs.
  Approximately 47,880 American soldiers have undertaken 14 
international contingency operations between 1991 and 1998. As a 
result, we need to match the administration's policy arguments with its 
budget demands to determine if the Pentagon has a clear peacekeeping 
strategy that reflects the major security interests of the United 
States and its allies.
  We did not have the benefit of this policy blueprint the first time 
that Congress approved Bosnia mission funding to monitor the Dayton 
peace accords with the FY96 budget. One year later, when the 
incremental cost of the Bosnia operation totaled $2.28 billion, we 
still had no mission guidance.
  For FY98, the House and Senate appropriated two packages of $1.5 
billion and $490 million a few months after a Presidential press 
conference that made our commitment in the Balkans open-ended.
  And in FY99, Mr. President, the White House would not even label its 
Bosnia funding request. It chose instead to place $1.86 billion in an 
ambiguous ``emergency operations'' category and forced the Senate Armed 
Services Committee to move this sum into the defense budget.
  When the Committee took this action last month, we did not know, 
after almost a three-year deployment, the conditions that would set the 
stage for an orderly force withdrawal.
  We did not know whether adequate stability had been achieved so that 
diplomats and community leaders could build self-sustaining civic 
institutions.
  We did not know why the administration extended the time frame of our 
deployment three times since November 1995.
  And we did not know, Mr. President, for how long and to what end the 
White House planned to keep rotating thousands of Service people in and 
out of the Bosnian vortex.
  Were our troops creating a Bosnian security environment for political 
reconciliation, or digging deeper into a country with a peace agreement 
that everyone signed but no one accepted?
  The administration cannot expect either Congress or the taxpayers to 
plow billions of dollars every year into protracted peacekeeping 
exercises. Our Bosnian experience teaches us that we will achieve 
clarity of goals and accountability in financing if the President 
develops a strategy before he submits a funding request, not as he asks 
for more to do what remains unclear.
  Ironically, this amendment stipulates what the administration once 
declared as its own strategy. Presidential Decision Directive 25 of May 
1994 outlined the scope and purpose of the administration's contingency 
operations policy. It promised the application of strict standards to 
determine whether the U.S. should participate in any overseas peace 
operation. The reporting categories specified by my amendment 
intentionally overlap with the President's directive. PDD-25 
specifically declared that potential CONOPS commitments would depend on 
``clear objectives'' and an identifiable ``endpoint.''
  As the new century unfolds, the need for a rational peacekeeping 
policy, as promised by PDD-25, will only grow. The May 1997 Quadrennial 
Defense Review concluded that ``the demand for smaller-scale 
contingency operations is expected to remain high over the next 15 to 
20 years'' while also acknowledging that peacekeeping commitments could 
cause a ``chronic erosion'' of procurement funding.
  At the same time, the National Defense Panel, created by Congress to 
review the guidelines of the QDR, analyzed the Pentagon's peacekeeping 
policy as one that forces troops ``too often and too quickly'' into 
disputes of a purely political or diplomatic character.
  This year, the Armed Services Committee received Navy and Air Force 
Posture Statements that contained warnings of negative readiness 
impacts from long contingency deployments. Navy Secretary Dalton 
specifically cited the ``requirements of the Unified Commands''--those 
that participate heavily in peacekeeping missions--as effecting the 
readiness of non-deployed fleet units.
  The number of Air Force personnel dedicated to contingency operations 
grew fourfold since 1989 to 14,600 by FR97. ``Caution indicators,'' as 
the report summarized it, have emerged in the areas of retention, 
reenlistment, and depleted inventories of spare parts.
  In addition, by October 1999, the Army, the most peacekeeping 
intensive of the Services, could lack the heavy armored divisions 
designed for rapid deployment to crisis areas. Two of the divisions 
that train full time for this mission may have one-third of their 
troops on duty in Bosnia or Kuwait.
  In FY94, the Army had 541,000 active duty soldiers and no commitments 
in Bosnia, and the Armed Services Committee considered this level the 
minimum necessary for effective crisis response. Yet today, the Army 
faces the

[[Page S7078]]

challenge of preparing for two Major Theater Wars, at a reduced force 
strength of 491,000, and with a deployment in Bosnia.
  We must act upon these warning signals from military leaders, Mr. 
President, by aligning the law with the new requirements placed on our 
war fighters. It only makes common sense to mandate a contingency 
operations policy rationale with a contingency operations budget 
request. I therefore commend the Senate for adopting the Snowe-Cleland 
amendment.



                          ____________________