[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 85 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7096-S7160]
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.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are working on a unanimous consent
agreement, and orally we have at least agreed that Senator Feingold
would speak on his amendment for about 20 minutes, and Senator Abraham
wants to speak for 10 minutes. We are proceeding with the unanimous
consent agreement. We think we can get things done in about an hour and
a half, and final passage. We are moving forward on that.
We will be voting on Senator Byrd's amendment pretty much after he
feels that everyone has spoken. But at the moment, we should move
forward, I think, with the Feingold amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the senior Senator
from Arizona. I will use some of the 20 minutes that I have been
allocated at this time and then reserve some of it in order to respond
to whatever arguments are made about the position of the amendment.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield just very briefly
without losing his right to the floor?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I will be happy to yield.
[[Page S7097]]
Amendment No. 3011 to Amendment No. 3010
(Purpose: To require separate training platoons and separate housing
for male and female basic trainees, and to ensure after-hours privacy
for basic trainees)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment and ask for its
reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an
amendment numbered 3011 to amendment No. 3010.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the amendment insert the following:
Sec. ____. (a) Army.--(1) Chapter 401 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``Sec. 4319. Recruit basic training: separate platoons and
separate housing for male and female recruits
``(a) Separate Platoons.--The Secretary of the Army shall
require that during basic training--
``(1) male recruits shall be assigned to platoons
consisting only of male recruits; and
``(2) female recruits shall be assigned to platoons
consisting only of female recruits.
``(b) Separate Housing Facilities.--The Secretary of the
Army shall require that during basic training male and female
recruits be housed in separate barracks or other troop
housing facilities.
``(c) Interim Authority for Housing Recruits on Separate
Floors.--(1) If the Secretary of the Army determines that it
is not feasible, during some or all of the period beginning
on April 15, 1999, and ending on October 1, 2001, to comply
with subsection (b) at any particular installation at which
basic training is conducted because facilities at that
installation are insufficient for such purpose, the Secretary
may grant a waiver of subsection (b) with respect to that
installation. Any such waiver may not be in effect after
October 1, 2001, and may only be in effect while the
facilities at that installation are insufficient for the
purposes of compliance with subsection (b).
``(2) If the Secretary grants a waiver under paragraph (1)
with respect to an installation, the Secretary shall require
that male and female recruits in basic training at that
installation during any period that the waiver is in effect
not be housed on the same floor of a barracks or other troop
housing facility.
``(d) Basic Training Defined.--In this section, the term
`basic training' means the initial entry training program of
the Army that constitutes the basic training of new
recruits.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``4319. Recruit basic training: separate platoons and separate housing
for male and female recruits.''.
(3) The Secretary of the Army shall implement section 4319
of title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1),
as rapidly as feasible and shall ensure that the provisions
of that section are applied to all recruit basic training
classes beginning not later than the first such class that
enters basic training on or after April 15, 1999.
(b) Navy and Marine Corps.--(1) Part III of subtitle C of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
chapter 601 the following new chapter:
``CHAPTER 602--TRAINING GENERALLY
``Sec.
``6931. Recruit basic training: separate small units and separate
housing for male and female recruits.
``Sec. 6931. Recruit basic training: separate small units and
separate housing for male and female recruits
``(a) Separate Small Unit Organization.--The Secretary of
the Navy shall require that during basic training--
``(1) male recruits in the Navy shall be assigned to
divisions, and male recruits in the Marine Corps shall be
assigned to platoons, consisting only of male recruits; and
``(2) female recruits in the Navy shall be assigned to
divisions, and female recruits in the Marine Corps shall be
assigned to platoons, consisting only of female recruits.
``(b) Separate Housing.--The Secretary of the Navy shall
require that during basic training male and female recruits
be housed in separate barracks or other troop housing
facilities.
``(c) Interim Authority for Housing Recruits on Separate
Floors.--(1) If the Secretary of the Navy determines that it
is not feasible, during some or all of the period beginning
on April 15, 1999, and ending on October 1, 2001, to comply
with subsection (b) at any particular installation at which
basic training is conducted because facilities at that
installation are insufficient for that purpose, the Secretary
may grant a waiver of subsection (b) with respect to that
installation. Any such waiver may not be in effect after
October 1, 2001, and may only be in effect while the
facilities at that installation are insufficient for the
purposes of compliance with subsection (b).
``(2) If the Secretary grants a waiver under paragraph (1)
with respect to an installation, the Secretary shall require
that male and female recruits in basic training at that
installation during any period that the waiver is in effect
not be housed on the same floor of a barracks or other troop
housing facility.
``(d) Basic Training Defined.--In this section, the term
`basic training' means the initial entry training programs of
the Navy and Marine Corps that constitute the basic training
of new recruits.''.
(2) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle C,
and at the beginning of part III of subtitle C, of such title
are amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter
601 the following new item:
``602. Training Generally...................................6931''.....
(3) The Secretary of the Navy shall implement section 6931
of title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1),
as rapidly as feasible and shall ensure that the provisions
of that section are applied to all recruit basic training
classes beginning not later than the first such class that
enters basic training on or after April 16, 1999.
(c) Air Force.--(1) Chapter 901 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 9319. Recruit basic training: separate flights and
separate housing for male and female recruits
``(a) Separate Flights.--The Secretary of the Air Force
shall require that during basic training--
``(1) male recruits shall be assigned to flights consisting
only of male recruits; and
``(2) female recruits shall be assigned to flights
consisting only of female recruits.
``(b) Separate Housing.--The Secretary of the Air Force
shall require that during basic training male and female
recruits be housed in separate dormitories or other troop
housing facilities.
``(c) Interim Authority for Housing Recruits on Separate
Floors.--(1) If the Secretary of the Air Force determines
that it is not feasible, during some or all of the period
beginning on April 15, 1999, and ending on October 1, 2001,
to comply with subsection (b) at any particular installation
at which basic training is conducted because facilities at
that installation are insufficient for such purpose, the
Secretary may grant a waiver of subsection (b) with respect
to that installation. Any such waiver may not be in effect
after October 1, 2001, and may only be in effect while the
facilities at that installation are insufficient for the
purposes of compliance with subsection (b).
``(2) If the Secretary grants a waiver under paragraph (1)
with respect to an installation, the Secretary shall require
that male and female recruits in basic training at that
installation during any period that the waiver is in effect
not be housed on the same floor of a dormitory or other troop
housing facility.
``(d) Basic Training Defined.--In this section, the term
`basic training' means the initial entry training program of
the Air Force that constitutes the basic training of new
recruits.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``9319. Recruit basic training: separate flights and separate housing
for male and female recruits.''.
(3) The Secretary of the Air Force shall implement section
9319 of title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph
(1), as rapidly as feasible and shall ensure that the
provisions of that section are applied to all recruit basic
training classes beginning not later than the first such
class that enters basic training on or after April 15, 1999.
Section 527 Not To take Effect.--Section 527 shall not take
effect.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
may be temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 2808
(Purpose: To terminate the Extremely Low Frequency Communications
System program of the Navy)
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2808 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
Gramm amendment also be set aside at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself and
Mr. Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 2808.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle B of title II, add the following:
[[Page S7098]]
SEC. . TERMINATION OF THE EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM PROGRAM.
(a) Termination of Program.--The Secretary of the Navy
shall terminate the Extremely Low Frequency Communication
System program.
(b) Payment of Termination Costs.--Funds that are available
on or after the date of the enactment of this Act for the
Department of Defense for obligation for the Extremely Low
Frequency Communication System program of the Navy may be
obligated for that program only for payment of the costs
associated with the termination of the program.
(c) Use of Savings for National Guard.--Funds referred to
in subsection (b) that are not necessary for terminating the
program under this section shall be transferred (in
accordance with such allocation between the Army National
Guard and the Air National Guard as the Secretary of Defense
shall direct) to funds available for the Army National Guard
and the Air National Guard for operation and maintenance for
the same fiscal year as the funds transferred, shall be
merged with the funds to which transferred, and shall be
available for the same period and purposes as the funds to
which transferred.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment terminates the Navy's
Extremely Low Frequency Communications System and uses the savings from
it to offset funding increases for our National Guard. I am very
pleased to be joined in introducing this amendment by our senior
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl.
Mr. President, the amendment would limit funds appropriated in this
bill for the Navy's Extremely Low Frequency Communications System or,
as is it called, Project ELF, and it involves the termination of this
program. It is time to mothball the project and use the savings to
correct a significant shortfall that we have in this authorization bill
in the funding for the National Guard's operations and maintenance
account. Project ELF is in Wisconsin, but it is an ineffective,
unnecessary, outdated, cold-war relic that is not wanted by most
residents of our State.
The members of the Wisconsin delegation have consistently fought for
years to close down this Project ELF. I have introduced legislation
during each Congress that I have been here to terminate it. And I have
also attempted and have, in fact, recommended it for closure to the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
This project has been opposed by residents of Wisconsin since its
inception, but for years we were told that the national security
considerations of the cold war outweighed our concerns about having
this installation in our State. As we continue our efforts to reduce
the Federal budget deficit and as the Department of Defense continues
to struggle to meet a tighter budget, it is just absolutely clear that
Project ELF should be closed down. If enacted, this amendment would
save approximately $12 million a year.
Project ELF is simply a one-way, primitive messenger system designed
to signal to but not actually communicate with deeply submerged Trident
submarines, so it is really just a bellringer. It is like a pricy
beeper system used to tell the submarine when it should rise to the
surface to get the actual detailed message through real communications
systems. This was designed a long time ago. It was designed when the
threat and consequences of detection to our submarines was real. But
ELF was never developed to an effective capability, and the demise of
the Soviet threat has certainly rendered at least this program
unnecessary.
With the end of the cold war, Project ELF has become harder and
harder to justify. Trident submarines no longer need to take this extra
precaution against Soviet nuclear forces. They now can surface on a
regular basis with less danger of detection or attack. They also
receive more complicated messages through very low frequency, or VLF,
radio waves or lengthier messages through satellite systems if it can
be done more cheaply.
During the 103d Congress, Mr. President, I worked with our former
colleague, Senator Nunn from Georgia, and included an amendment in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 that required a
report by the Secretary of Defense on the benefits and the costs of
continued operation of this Project ELF. The report issued by DOD was
particularly disappointing because it basically argued that because
Project ELF may have had a purpose during the cold war, it should
somehow continue to operate after the cold war as part of the complete
complement of command and control links that were configured with the
cold war in mind.
So if the question is, Did Project ELF play a role in helping to
minimize the Soviet threat? Perhaps. Did it do so at risk to the
community? Perhaps. But does it continue to play a vital security role
to this Nation? No, it doesn't. It does not have that role.
In the 1995 rescissions bill, the Senate, as a whole, recommended the
termination for Project ELF. Somehow again, though, the program
survived when some conference committee members claimed to have ``newly
released, highly classified justifications'' for the program's
continuation. When I looked into these claims and was assured by the
Navy and Strategic Command that no new classified justifications
existed, I continued my effort to try to get rid of this program.
Again, the Senate cut funding for the program in 1996 in the DOD
authorization bill but somehow it was again resurrected in conference.
I would like you to know that both congressional representatives who
have ELF installations in their areas, Representatives Obey and Stupak,
support getting rid of this project. Also, former commander in chief of
the Strategic Command, General George Lee Butler, called for an end to
the cold-war nuclear weapons practices, of which Project ELF is a
harrowing reminder.
Additionally, the Center for Defense Information called for ending
the program, noting that ``U.S. submarines operating under present and
foreseeable worldwide military conditions can receive all necessary
orders and instructions in timely fashion without need for Project
ELF.''
As I mentioned, Mr. President, the savings from terminating this
Project ELF would offset increases for National Guard operations and
maintenance, O&M. As we all know, the National Guard expects this year
a $594 million budget shortfall for the coming year, almost a $600
million shortfall for our National Guard, and this follows fast on the
heels of a $743 million shortfall for the National Guard during the
current fiscal year.
According to the National Guard, these shortfalls are, in fact,
compromising the Guard's readiness levels, capabilities, force
structure, and end strength. The National Guard's O&M account shortfall
directly affects surface operations tempo, real property maintenance,
depot maintenance, information and telecommunications management, and
medical support.
The President's 1999 budget request leaves the National Guard's O&M
account a significant $450 million below what it really must be in
order to meet the needs of the Guard and, therefore, the needs of our
military and our country. The shortfalls have increasingly greater
effect given the National Guard's increased operations burdens. This is
a result of new missions and increased deployments and training
requirements, including the National Guard's critical role in places
like Bosnia, the Iraq situation, Haiti and Somalia.
Just to give my colleagues some background, as of now the Army
National Guard represents 34 percent of all--total Army forces,
including 55 percent of combat divisions and brigades, 46 percent of
the combat support, and 25 percent of combat service support. And, yet,
despite these very high figures of the critical and central role of the
National Guard, the National Guard just gets 9.5 percent of the Army's
funding.
In total numbers, the National Guard receives just 71 percent of its
requested funding as opposed to the Active Army getting 80 percent and
the Army Reserves getting 81 percent.
It is time we moved toward giving the National Guard adequate and
equal funding. While this amendment would certainly not achieve funding
equity for the National Guard, it is a step in the right direction. It
does increase funding for the nation's only constitutionally mandated
defense force, the National Guard.
Finally, I would like to briefly mention the public health and
environmental concerns that have sometimes been associated with Project
ELF. For almost two decades, we have received
[[Page S7099]]
inconclusive data on this project's effects on Wisconsin and Michigan
residents. In 1984, a U.S. district court ordered the project be shut
down because the Navy paid inadequate attention to the system's
possible health effects and violated the national environmental policy.
Interestingly, that decision was overturned because U.S. national
security at the time, Mr. President--at the time--prevailed over public
health and environmental concerns. Obviously, at that time the cold war
was still occurring.
More than 40 medical studies point to a link between electromagnetic
pollution and cancer and abnormalities in both animal and plant
species. Metal fences near the two transmitters must be grounded to
avoid serious shock from the presence of high voltages.
Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my
colleagues this article from this morning's Washington Post. An
international committee, convened by the National Institutes of
Environmental Health Sciences undertook the study of electric and
magnetic fields as a possible cause of cancer. Project ELF produces the
same kind of electric and magnetic fields cited by this distinguished
committee, and the committee's announcement seems to confirm some of
the fears of many Wisconsinites.
At this point, I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed,
also to follow my remarks in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. FEINGOLD. Earlier this year, a coalition of fiscal conservatives
and environmentalists targeted, among other programs, Project ELF,
because it harms both the Federal budget deficit and the environment.
The coalition which includes groups like the Concord Coalition,
Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Wildlife Federation and
Friends of the Earth, took aim at about 70 wasteful and dangerous
programs, and this was one of them. I hope we heed their suggestion and
end this program.
This amendment achieves two vital goals of many of my colleagues
here. It terminates a wasteful and unnecessary cold-war era program,
while providing funding increases for the National Guard. It is truly a
win/win situation and I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
Exhibit 1
Health Panel Urges Power Line Studies--Electric, Magnetic Fields Termed
``Possible Human Carcinogen''
(By Curt Suplee)
The kind of electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) that
typically surround electric power lines should be regarded as
a ``possible human carcinogen,'' a federally sponsored
advisory panel concluded yesterday.
The 29-member international committee, convened by the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and
meeting outside Minneapolis, voted 19 to 9 to consider power-
line EMFs as a possible cause of cancer. Eight members found
that the fields could not be classified as causing cancer,
and one decided that EMFs are probably not carcinogenic in
humans.
In a statement, NIEHS said that the majority was most
influenced by epidemiological studies that ``showed a slight
increase in childhood leukemia risk from power-line/
residential exposures, and an increase in chronic leukemia
risk in adults in electricity-intensive industries.''
The possible link between EMFs and cancer is highly
controversial. Some other advisory groups, including panels
of the National Cancer Institute and National Academy of
Sciences, have noted the same association but found it
inconclusive.
The panel's recommendation will be included in a report
that NIEHS, which is part of the National Institutes of
Health, is scheduled to present to Congress and regulatory
agencies in coming months.
``This report does not suggest that the risk is high,''
said committee chairman Michael Gallo of the University of
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Medical
School. ``It is probably quite small, compared to many other
public health risks. However, I strongly believe that
additional . . . research should be pursued to reduce
uncertainties in this arena.''
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes 40 seconds
remaining.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of this
amendment to eliminate the Extremely Low Frequency or ELF System, and
transfer these funds, some $12 million, to the National Guard. I
commend my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, for his
persistent efforts to kill this cold war relic.
It is amazing to me that no matter how many times the Senate votes in
favor of eliminating this little known and obsolete system, it
continues to reemerge in conference. In an era of tight budgets, with
pressures to fund operations abroad and maintain modernization efforts
at home, we need to take a closer took at the ELF System and recognize
that we have far more compelling needs even within the defense budget.
Project ELF was conceived solely to launch and win a nuclear war. It
was designed to protect submerged submarines from Soviet detection.
Unfortunately, ELF's capabilities are minimal and, given the end of the
cold war, its rationale is dubious. ELF is a communications system for
sending one-way pre-formatted messages from shore commands to
submarines operating at high speeds and depth without exposing antennae
on the ocean surface. ELF's message capability is very limited and very
slow--three letters take 15 minutes to transmit--so a submarine must
still surface to retrieve communications. This poses serious questions
about the protection ELF can provide to our submarine fleet.
ELF's transmitting facilities are located in Clam Lake, WI and
Republic, MI. The two antennae work together to strengthen the signal.
The Clam Lake antenna is 28 miles long with two sets of wires strung on
telephone poles. The wires form an X running several miles out in four
directions from the center.
The existence of this large antenna in Wisconsin has raised health
and environmental questions over the years. At best the data on the
risks posed by this facility are inconclusive. At worst, more than 40
medical studies point to a link between electromagnetic pollution and
cancer. The people of Wisconsin would rather not have this question
mark hanging over their heads.
Directing ELF's funding to the National Guard would be a much better
use of these funds. The National Guard has been under funded in the
FY99 budget request and the trend continues in that direction: Unfunded
requirements for the Army National Guard could exceed $1.2 billion by
2002 if current trends continue. Our amendment will help address this
shortfall.
Let me just conclude by noting that people of Wisconsin do not want
this system in their borders. For years now, we have been working with
the members of Congress in whose districts this system is based to shut
it down. We almost succeeded in 1995 when the Senate Appropriations
Committee rescinded funding for ELF in the Defense supplemental. At
that time, I was told that the Navy wasn't interested in funding ELF
anymore. Furthermore, when the Strategic Command was asked about the
ELF program, it was lukewarm in its support, indicating that they would
like to see ELF funded but they couldn't possibly fund it out of their
own budget. Yet, at the last minute in conference, the House announced
that there was new and classified information that supposedly revealed
that ELF is essential to national security. The Defense Department has
since weighed in with a letter saying it would like to keep ELF.
Our inability to kill ELF is a perfect example of how we can't seem
to shed the Cold War infrastructure that has shaped our defense budgets
for so many years. We pay much lip service to ``defense reform'' and
making defense spending relevant to threats of the future, but when we
have a small opportunity to demonstrate our resolve in this area, we
cower at the thought of dismantling even one small system.
Mr. President, let's not hesitate this time. Let's eliminate this
anachronism once and for all. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for
his leadership on this issue.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Feingold amendment
to terminate the Navy's Extremely Low Frequency communications system.
The so-called Project ELF is a vital communications system that
allows
[[Page S7100]]
the United States to send messages to submarines that are traveling in
very deep water. These messages tell submarines to come closer to the
surface to receive more detailed communications. ELF is the only way to
get a message to attack and ballistic missile submarines when they are
at their normal operating depths.
Contrary to the argument made by the Senator from Wisconsin, Project
ELF is not a cold war relic. The system remains as vital as ever. The
need for the United States to have a survivable submarine force remains
essential. ELF is not only needed to send messages to U.S. ballistic
missile submarines but also to attack submarines.
In the post-Cold Ware era, the United States will place even greater
emphasis on the submarine force for strategic deterrence. A survivable
Trident submarine force is essential. This was reaffirmed in the
Administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which recommended the
retention of 14 Trident submarines for the foreseeable future. In a
letter to the Armed Services Committee the Commander-in-Chief of the
U.S. Strategic Command, wrote the following: ``Both ELF communications
sites, operating simultaneously, are needed to meet our worldwide
requirements. Dismantling this critical system would unacceptably
impact the survivability and flexibility of our submarine force.'' Just
this week the nominee to be the next Commander-in-Chief of Strategic
Command, Admiral Richard Mies, reaffirmed STRATCOM's strong support for
the ELF system.
The need for a survivable U.S. submarine force did not end with the
Cold War. Russia retains an aggressive anti-submarine warfare program
designed to develop advanced capabilities to track and destroy all
types of U.S. submarines. The United States continues to invest
billions of dollars to maintain and modernize our submarine force.
Other countries, such as Iran, are also acquiring an attack submarine
force.
Congress continues to strongly support development of a New Attack
Submarine. This important submarine modernization program is justified,
in part, by Russia's aggressive ASW program. If the Senate is willing
to sustain such programs, we should sustain Project ELF. If we
terminate this communications program we will save approximately $10
million per year, but put at risk a multi-billion dollar investment in
our submarine force.
The assertion has also been made that the ELF system may pose a
public health threat. There is no evidence to substantiate this
assertion. This question has been extensively studied. Each assessment
has concluded that there is no risk to public safety.
The Department of Defense opposes the Feingold legislation to
terminate project ELF. In a letter dated May 7, 1997, the DOD General
Counsel wrote that: ``The Department of Defense, Joint Staff, the
Department of the Navy, and U.S. Strategic Command all agree on the
necessity of maintaining the ELF system.'' The letter also stated that:
``ELF is the only communications system available that ensures the
maintenance of these critical communication links. Costly new research
and development would have to be done to provide another communications
path to our submarines to ensure our ability to communicate at speed
and depth.''
Mr. President, in summary, this amendment would jeopardize the
security of the entire U.S. submarine force. There is no benefit to
canceling this program and the risk of doing so is extremely high. I
urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will use a bit more of the time I am
allotted. I would like to briefly respond to the distinguished
chairman. He indicated, first of all, the distinguished Senator from
Michigan, who is a member of the Armed Services Committee, has been a
critic of the Project ELF program long prior to the time I was serving
in the Senate. Surely the Senator from Michigan would not support such
a termination if it truly was a threat to our entire submarine system
and our national security.
In particular, Mr. President, there were apparently, at least
arguably, benefits to this program at one point. But these
justifications that have just been identified no longer can be
defended. I tried very hard for 5 years to find exactly what it is that
is so critical that this system does, and I can't find it. Let me
review briefly what the problem is with this ELF program.
It is an unsophisticated technology which is designed to only signal
to, not actually substantively communicate with, a deeply submerged
Trident submarine. It is entirely ineffective in communicating anything
of substance. While Project ELF may provide an additional form of
communication, it is really just redundant over the communications
systems we now have at this time.
Any benefit from this is just marginal. It cannot communicate
messages. It can just give phonetic-letter-spelled-out messages at the
rate of 1 pulse per 5 minutes. And wartime messages, except messages to
strike, presumably would require more sophisticated methods.
We are dismantling our first-strike capability. In order to act in
combat, submarines have to come to the surface anyway, Mr. President,
in order to receive messages and to launch missiles. So they are at
risk of detection anyway at precisely the moment that we are talking
about. Even in its optimum construction, Project ELF has no nuclear
survivability; it has no nuclear dependability and, thus, it really
doesn't have any wartime efficacy.
The justifications that have been given again here are the old ones.
They do not fit the reality of the post-Soviet submarine era, and that
is the reason why there is a justification for this amendment. It saves
money, and it provides funding for our National Guard that desperately
needs the help.
This is what is sometimes so frustrating about trying to ask the
Defense Department just to give up something that they don't need. I
understand criticisms of proposals for across-the-board cuts that
mindlessly say, ``Let's just cut out a percentage of the defense
budget.'' That can't possibly be a reflection of the needs of our
national security. But when a careful effort has been made over many
years by Members of both bodies of our Congress to identify a specific
program as outdated and is a cold-war relic, it seems to me it is our
job in this body to say, ``Wait a minute; this $12 million a year is
wasted.''
I am not even asking in this amendment that it be put into some other
area of Government. I am asking that it be put into our National Guard,
which I can tell you, having visited several armories in Wisconsin
recently, the National Guard in Wisconsin has inventory problems. They
can't get the training they need, and they don't have the personnel
they need. They are, unlike Project ELF, critical to our national
security.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 45 seconds.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to those who have
already spoken in support of the defense authorization bill. Providing
for the common defense is the single most important responsibility of a
national government. If we fail in this regard, all the other aspects
of our public policy become irrelevant. I am particularly pleased with
the significant role that my own State of Maine plays in our national
defense.
The legislation brought to us by the Armed Services Committee--and I
commend the leaders of the committee for their tremendous efforts--
recognizes Maine's contributions in a number of ways. Perhaps none is
more significant than the contribution of the State of Maine in the
field of naval shipbuilding. This is where the skill and the dedication
of Maine workers at Bath Iron Works provide the U.S. Navy with state-
of-the-art Arleigh Burke class destroyers, the backbone of our
destroyer fleet. Fortunately, this bill ensures this will be true for
years to come, because the legislation continues the Navy's multiyear
procurement program for the Arleigh Burke class.
The bill also provides funding for the new LPD-17 amphibious ship
which will be built in Bath and will help the Marine Corps maintain its
local reach for years to come.
Moreover, this bill provides continued funding for the Navy's next
generation of destroyers, the DD-21. With the
[[Page S7101]]
DD-21, Mainers will continue to play a pivotal role on the cutting edge
of American sea power through Bath's participation in the
``shipbuilding alliance'' that will construct this powerful and
innovative new ship for our 21st-century Navy.
Other provisions of importance to my State increase funding to
modernize and reconfigure the Navy's P-3 maritime patrol aircraft. This
should permit these tried-and-true workhorses of naval aviation,
operating out of bases such as the Brunswick Naval Air Station in
Maine, to continue protecting our security for years to come. This bill
also recognizes and supports the contributions of a number of very
important defense contractors in Maine, including Saco Defense, Pratt &
Whitney and Fiber Materials International of Biddeford.
Furthermore, having learned a great deal about the extraordinary
high-tech chemical and biological sensor laboratory at the University
of Maine, I am also proud of the groundbreaking role Maine is playing
in this crucial field. Recent events in Iraq and elsewhere illustrate
the grave threats posed by the proliferation of chemical and biological
weapons, the so-called poor man's atomic bomb. If we are to protect
Americans against such threats, our troops in the field and our
citizens at home need access to small, portable, state-of-the-art
sensors capable of detecting such threats quickly and efficiently. I am
proud that the University of Maine and Maine companies, such as Sensor
Research & Development, are playing such an important role in preparing
to meet this need and that this legislation supports funding for this
important research program and other very significant defense projects
at the University of Maine.
Maine will also contribute to our national defense in the development
of advanced composite materials--a field in which Fiber Materials
International, of Biddeford, Maine, is a world leader. From structural
skin elements of advanced NASA spacecraft to the nose tips and other
components for a whole generation of high-tech missile systems, FMI
provides this country with the very best in fiber composite materials.
Another world leader from Maine is the Pratt & Whitney plant in South
Berwick, Maine, which produces engine components for the F-15 Eagle.
I should also note that this bill also aims to help ensure that the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service meets its cost-cutting goals in
a responsible manner--by requiring a careful study of how best to
balance DFAS infrastructure reductions before the Department of Defense
undertakes any such cuts. This ought to help Maine, and other states,
avoid any unfair burden from cuts in facilities such as the award-
winning DFAS center in Limestone, Maine. I commend my colleague, the
senior Senator from Maine, for her amendment requiring this study.
As a state with one of the highest per-capita populations of veterans
in the country, Maine will also gain from this bill's provision for
three demonstration projects designed to help the Department of Defense
determine the best way to provide health care to Medicare-eligible
veterans over the age of 65. Among the demonstration projects this
language would authorize is an effort to extend FEHBP benefits to
Medicare-eligible veterans. This provision is itself modeled upon a
bill introduced by Senator Bond which I have cosponsored. Through such
demonstration projects, we hope to be able to fill a significant gap in
the health care our country provides to military retirees.
As a final observation, I would like to point out that this defense
authorization bill also includes language I introduced that will
release federal interests in the Kennebec Arsenal in Augusta, Maine.
The national government actually transferred this property to Maine
nearly a century ago, but this conveyance had a number of strings
attached--among them the requirement that the land only be used for a
mental hospital. Today, these conditions are wholly obsolete, and this
historic site is in great need of repair and historical preservation.
The language I introduced which has been incorporated into the defense
authorization bill will finally release the Kennebec Arsenal, without
conditions, to the people of Maine. Augusta, ME, has very exciting
plans for renovating this historic structure.
All in all, this defense authorization bill represents far-sighted
thinking about the challenges of U.S. defense policy in the years
ahead. For this alone, it deserves our support. I am however,
particularly pleased that this bill recognizes Maine's role in our
defense preparedness and our state's pivotal position on the forefront
of defense research and development, and that it builds upon them in
order to ensure our security in the 21st Century. Mr. President, I urge
my colleagues to support this legislation, and I, again, salute the
leaders of the Armed Services Committee for their impressive efforts.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Amendment No. 3011
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the Byrd
amendment and speak in favor of that amendment. I will not take very
long, but I do want to draw some points of attention to my colleagues.
This amendment is about separate barracks and separate training. We
had a thorough debate on this yesterday, so I don't need to speak for a
long period of time. This amendment, in my estimation, is a very
sensible step in restoring privacy and dignity to the military basic
training experience.
The amendment codifies--I want to make this point very clear to my
colleagues--this amendment, actually more than the one I put forward
yesterday, this amendment codifies the Kassebaum-Baker recommendation,
a unanimous commission, a bipartisan recommendation of separate-gender
barracks facilities, and this goes on to say also during basic training
separate-gender training.
This is also what has passed the House. So if my colleagues ask the
question, Is this moving too far forward? I want to point a couple
things out to them. This is the unanimous recommendation of the
Kassebaum-Baker commission. This is the recommendation. This is what
has passed the House of Representatives. This is what the Marines
currently do, and it is what most of the branches, up until this
decade, did as well.
But the sole point I actually want to make to my colleagues is this.
We have had a good airing of this. When you come down to vote on this
bill, will you please think of your daughters and your sons and sending
them to basic training? I just ask and beg of you, please just think
about your 18-year-old children.
And when you send them off to basic training--would you ask yourself,
as you vote: Do I want to send my young daughter--in my case, Abby and
Liz--do I want to send my 18-year-old daughter to basic training--I
want them to serve their country; I really do want them to serve their
country--but do I want to send them to basic training, 18 years old,
and be able to have a male drill sergeant come in and out at any time
of the day or night, such as in the cases that have taken place and
take place?
Do I want to have them in the same barracks facility as other 18-
year-old men, who, at the end of the day, may be looking for other
things to do? Is that where I want to put Abby and Elizabeth? Is that
where you want to put your daughters, your children?
This is not a wild idea or notion that Senator Byrd has put forward.
It is common sense. It is the thing we ought to do. And so when the
Senators cast their votes tonight, I hope when they write down that
vote, they will think about their daughters, their granddaughters,
their sons, their grandsons, and America, and ask, What is really best
here?
Let us not hide behind another commission. A lot of people just want
to do that--``Let's have another commission''--and we will do a
commission until it reports out the way some people want. Let us just
do what we know is right, what we have been doing with the Kassebaum-
Baker commission reports, what has already passed, and let us pass the
Byrd amendment.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
[[Page S7102]]
Amendment No. 2808
Mr. ABRAHAM. Could I inquire of the Chair as to what the pending
business is?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the amendment of the
Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to speak briefly.
I am not sure if we had an official time agreement on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no official time agreement.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I have some brief remarks I have to add to those by the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I may have additional
comments later, but I think this will be all that I have to add.
Mr. President, I rise today with the Department of Defense, the U.S.
Strategic Command, the United States Navy, the Commander of the
Atlantic Fleet Submarine Force, the Wisconsin State Conference of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Wisconsin and
Michigan District of the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, and the Upper Peninsula Building and Construction Trades
Council, in opposing the amendment offered by my friend from Wisconsin,
Mr. Feingold.
Because our time is limited, I will get right to the point. The
program which is defined in this amendment as the ELF program is of
critical importance to the United States military. It has been for many
years, and continues to be today, even in this post-cold-war
environment. No other system can replace it, and if we eliminate it,
our submarines will be forced to operate at lower speeds, shallower
depths, less maneuverability, and will therefore be more vulnerable to
detection and attack from hostile forces.
Last year, the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, General
Habiger, told the Senate Armed Services Committee:
As the only system capable of communicating with submarines
operating deep beneath the ocean surface, ELF is key to
enhancing the security and flexibility of that submarine
force. Without ELF, submarines must communicate at shallow
depth and slow speed with increased vulnerability to
detection and decreased operation flexibility. The capability
to operate at depth and speed is even more important in
today's post Cold War environment. . . . From a security
standpoint, ELF is critical to maintaining our hedge against
current and future ASW [anti-submarine warfare] threats.
In fact, Mr. President, the Department of Defense recently wrote the
Senate Armed Services Committee and stated that maintaining our
deterrence and commitments under current arms control agreements and
unilateral U.S. initiatives require the continued operation of ELF. The
United States Navy is planning additional upgrades to this system
because new command and control procedures will place an even greater
reliance on ELF. Similar statements of support have been made by the
previous and prospective Commanders of the U.S. Strategic Command,
Admiral Chiles and Admiral Mies. I ask unanimous consent, Mr.
President, that the letters from the Department of Defense, and both
Admirals be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
Department of Defense,
General Counsel,
Washington, DC, May 7, 1997.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your request for
the views of the Department of Defense on S. 59, 105th
Congress, a bill ``To Terminate the Extremely Low Frequency
Communication System of the Navy.''
The Department of Defense opposes enactment of S. 59.
The Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Communication System is a
unique and highly effective means of one-way communication
from U.S. based operational commanders to ballistic missile
submarines (SSBNs) and selected fast attack submarines (SSNs)
at operational depths and speeds. In fact, it is the only
system capable of communicating with submarines operating
deep beneath the ocean surface. This is critical if both
SSBNs and SSNs are to utilize their full range of tactical
capabilities. While other communication systems require
submarines to deploy an antenna at or near the surface, the
ELF system allows communication further from the surface
thereby increasing operational flexibility and maximizing the
stealth inherent in our nuclear submarines. Two ELF
transmission sites are required to maintain worldwide
communications coverage.
As a consequence of arms control agreements and unilateral
U.S. initiatives, we have reduced the number of alert
strategic weapons and forces. Accordingly, our strategic
deterrent posture relies increasingly on flexible,
responsive, highly survivable submarine forces. The ELF
provides an important operational capability for SSBNs and
SSNs. This legislation seeks to terminate this important
program. Without ELF, submarines must communicate at shallow
depths with increased vulnerability to detection and
decreased operational flexibility. ELF enables a broader
range of nuclear weapon de-posturing possibilities that can
be implemented if required. Termination of ELF would
seriously degrade submarine operations, by reducing
responsiveness, and potentially survivability, of submarines
because they would need to resort to less survivable
communication postures.
The Department of Defense, Joint Staff, the Department of
the Navy, and U.S. Strategic Command all agree on the
necessity of maintaining the ELF system. In fact, the
Department's recently completed comprehensive review of the
Nuclear Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence
System, conducted in support of the Department's Nuclear
Posture Review, strongly supported the continued operation of
the ELF system.
Fiscal constraints have mandated a reduction in the fixed
submarine broadcast system. As the world coverage and
redundancy of our communication networks are reduced, the ELF
system ensures SSBNs can operate in all patrol areas and meet
stringent connectivity requirements. The ELF system supports
the rapid repositioning of SSBNs for contingency target
coverage while maintaining continuous communications from the
National Command Authority. Likewise, the ELF system provides
immediate, dependable communications with SSNs operating in a
multitude of theaters, communication which is essential to
successful accomplishment of their assigned missions. ELF is
the only communications system available that ensures the
maintenance of these critical communication links. Costly new
research and development would have to be done to provide
another communication path to our submarines to ensure our
ability to communicate at speed and depth.
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 for the
consideration of the committee.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Miller.
____
Department of Defense,
U.S. Strategic Command,
Washington, DC, September 5, 1995.
Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on National
Security, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Among the potential FY96 House
Appropriation Bill Floor Amendments is one which prohibits
Navy Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Communications funding.
Project ELF is essential for the effective use of the most
critical leg of the strategic TRIAD. Therefore, I will
reiterate some of the important facts surrounding ELF.
Post-Cold War reposturing and arms control agreements have
resulted in placing more emphasis on submarines as the major
leg of our nuclear deterrence. The ELF Communications System
is the only system capable of communicating with submarines
operating deep beneath the ocean's surface. This allows
ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and attack submarines
(SSNs), as well, to utilize their full range of tactical
capabilities and maximize inherent stealth, thereby providing
the operational flexibility needed to support command and
control requirements stemming from force structure and
mission changes.
ELF is also the only communications system that supports
rapid reposturing of SSBNs for contingency target coverage by
allowing continuous connectivity with the submarine while it
transits at design depth and speed. ELF provides the SSBN the
ability to train and exercise within the full envelop of its
capabilities and maintain the ability to rapidly respond to
National Command Authorities' orders. Both ELF communications
sites, operating simultaneously, are needed to meet our
worldwide requirements. Dismantling this critical system
would unacceptably impact the survivability and flexibility
of our submarine forces.
Your continued support is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
H.G. Chiles, Jr.,
Admiral, U.S. Navy, Commander in Chief.
____
Commander Submarine Force,
U.S. Atlantic Fleet,
Norfolk, VA, June 15, 1998.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to respond
to the questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee. It
is an honor to have been nominated by the President to be
Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command. I respectfully
submit the enclosed responses to your questions on
[[Page S7103]]
the important defense policy and management issues and look
forward to working with you and the Committee.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Mies,
Vice Admiral, USN.
Enclosure.
Extremely Low Frequency Communications
Question 54: Do you support continued operation of the
Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) communications system?
Answer. Yes, I support continued operation of the ELF
communications system. A strong command and control
capability remains of utmost importance to the success of our
Nation's strategic deterrence. Post-Cold War strategic force
reductions have resulted in more emphasis on submarines in
our strategic triad. ELF is a unique and highly effective
system capable of one-way communications with strategic
submarines at secure operating depths and speeds. While other
communications systems require a submarine to deploy an
antenna at or near the ocean surface, the ELF system allows
communication further from the surface thereby increasing
operational flexibility and maximizing the stealth inherent
in our strategic submarines. Both ELF transmissions sites,
operating simultaneously, are required to meet our worldwide
requirements.
Question 55: Do you believe that this system is cost
effective and necessary, especially in light of other U.S.
decisions to downgrade U.S. strategic command and control?
Answer. The ELF system is very cost effective. A nuclear
command and control review conducted in support of the
Nuclear Posture Review strongly supported the continued
operation of the ELF system. Loss of this critical system
would adversely impact the survivability and flexibility of
our strategic submarine force.
Mr. ABRAHAM. The second argument made by the opponents of ELF are
that significant cost savings can be achieved by closing ELF. However,
if the operational requirement is still valid, as we have shown that it
is, and if that requirement can only be met with this facility, then an
investment of about $15 million per year is, in my opinion, a very
worthwhile expenditure to provide the greatest operational capability
for U.S. submarine forces. Furthermore, because of the requirement
delineated by the Department of Defense to keep this capability for our
arms control deterrence requirements, the Department states they will
have to spend additional money on research for a replacement system
which has not yet been developed, additional money which would swallow
up any of the costs savings claimed by the opponents of ELF.
Finally, Mr. President, the opponents of ELF claim the facility is an
environmental hazard. As for the environmental impact, the Navy has
initiated and funded an ongoing environmental monitoring program
managed by an independent organization, I.I.T. Research Institute of
Chicago, Illinois and R.D.L. Corporation. The combined results of these
studies have found no adverse effect on animals, plants, or micro-
organisms.
And, Mr. President, this study was exhaustive. It studied such
diverse ecological issues as the degradation of bogs in Wisconsin, tree
physiology and growth, earthworm, soil amoebas and slime molds, bees,
birds, chipmunks--everything. It found no adverse effect on the
environment because of the ELF transmissions. This study was further
reviewed by the National Research Council in 1997, and they agreed with
the Navy's findings of no adverse ecological effects.
Furthermore, in 1996, the National Academy of Science, in an
exhaustive study of the effects of electromagnetic radiation on humans,
determined that
After examining more than 500 studies spanning 17 years of
research, the committee said there is no conclusive evidence
that electromagnetic fields play a role in the development of
cancer, reproductive and developmental abnormalities, or
learning and behavioral problems.
That, Mr. President, is pretty conclusive evidence, I think, of ELF's
safety.
So, Mr. President, we have a choice. We can choose to squarely
analyze the scientific research at hand, listen to the operational
requirements of military Commanders, and provide our submarines, and
the men and women that sail them, the best possible chance of achieving
their mission, let alone survival. Or we can choose to force our
sailors to operate without the equipment they need, placing them in
greater danger. For just under $150,000 per submarine, the equivalent
of the personnel costs of seven junior sailors, we can provide every
submarine the capability of running deep, fast, silent and deadly
instead of shallow, slow, noisy and vulnerable.
Mr. President, please let me close with a quote from Joe Stranger,
President of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Wisconsin State Conference.
The United States still has enemies that relish our demise
and this [ELF] system is a decided advantage to any submarine
operation in protection of our way of life. This system does
not only protect this Country, but also protects those
valuable lives of American servicemen and women who operate
those submarines in the line of duty. I do not believe the
minimal savings is worth the risk.
Mr. President, I could not say this any better. I therefore urge my
colleagues to reject this amendment and protect our sailors.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. It is a great joy working with the distinguished
Senator from Michigan, and I regret having to be on the opposite side
of this amendment, especially since it is our two States that are most
affected by this project--ELF.
But this truly is a project in search of a justification. It had a
purpose in the cold war. But when the Senator from Michigan lays out
the purpose of the program, what isn't clearly identified is all this
Project ELF does. He talks about the slower speeds and the fact that
the submarines have to come up. But that is premised, somehow, on the
notion that the submarines are being told something of any detail while
they are submerged. They are not. Project ELF can only tell the
submarine: ``Come up.'' It is sort of like: ``ET, phone home.'' That is
all you get. ``Come up and get your messages. Check your answering
machine.''
While the submarine is submerged, it cannot learn what the threat is,
it cannot get instructions, it cannot get anything. All it gets is a
message that it has to come up anyway, that it has to slow down anyway.
For 5 years I have been searching for a justification for something
that is nothing more than really a very primitive beeper system that
you can't communicate back with and you can't get any real information
from. The only justification for it was the fact that we had a threat
from Soviet nuclear submarines. That threat is no longer there, and
there is no two-way communication that comes from this.
Again, this is one of the sad moments where a program comes into
existence and somehow, because it once was supposed to have a
justification under another set of facts, under another series of
threats, it just keeps going because a couple of people in the military
say it still might be handy.
The problem with that is, this is real money. It is $12 million a
year that could be spent on a number of things. Under my amendment, we
would spend it on our true national security. This is about priorities
within our national security. I believe an archaic ELF system is less
important than putting $12 million a year into the National Guard,
which is underfunded under this bill. The needs of the National Guard
armories, the inventory, the training, are underfunded under the
Department of Defense authorization bill.
All I am trying to do here is to balance this, to say let's get rid
of something that really isn't necessary, that really is primitive,
that doesn't provide the sophisticated kind of communication that is
claimed, and instead provide help to our hard-working men and women who
are part of our National Guard and who now comprise a very significant
part of what our Army does in this country.
This is an unusual situation. Both Senators from our State and the
State where this exists are saying, ``Please get rid of this program.''
How often do Senators from a State go to the base closure system and
say please take something out of our State? I assure Members, neither
Senator Kohl nor I would propose such a thing if we were not convinced
after years of efforts that this program did not have a national
security implication, that it was outdated, it was a waste of money,
and the money was better used helping our National Guard.
I ask our colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the remainder of our time.
[[Page S7104]]
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Feingold
amendment be set aside pending the disposition of the unanimous consent
agreement which is going to be propounded shortly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. While we are lining up the next speaker, I urge my
colleagues to help in bringing this to a conclusion. It is a quarter to
7. We haven't locked in an agreement to get a sequence of votes on
amendments and final passage. If we don't get that done right away, we
will be here past 10 o'clock. So it is time we cut our speeches short
and get the vote scheduled and bring this to a conclusion. Otherwise,
we will be here into the wee hours of the morning.
I want to thank Senators Warner, McCain, Thurmond, and Levin for
trying to put together an agreement. We need to get it done and quit
talking and get to the final votes on this defense bill.
Mr. McCAIN. Does that mean that the leader does not wish to speak on
the Byrd amendment?
Mr. LOTT. I do not wish to speak on the Byrd amendment. I support it,
and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. McCAIN. That is a great example by our leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Byrd
amendment No. 3011.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask that the pending business be laid
aside pending the propounding of the unanimous consent, which will be
shortly. In the meantime, I ask that the Senator from Maine be
recognized for her remarks. I believe by the time that the Senator from
Maine has completed her remarks, we will be ready with the unanimous
consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SNOWE. 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 will speak to the Byrd amendment. The
fact is, I am rather surprised that the Senator from West Virginia
offered this amendment as a second-degree amendment, considering the
fact that last night the Senate, in its wisdom, upheld the second-
degree amendment that I offered to the amendment offered by the Senator
from Kansas.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for the propounding of a unanimous
consent agreement?
Ms. SNOWE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Unanimous Consent request
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
Byrd amendment and the underlying Gramm amendment be laid aside, and
the following Senators be recognized in the following order, under the
following time, with no second-degree amendments in order, except those
listed prior to votes in relation to amendments.
The Feingold amendment, 2 minutes of debate by the distinguished
chairman, Senator Thurmond, on the Feingold amendment, which would then
complete all debate on the Feingold amendment; the Bumpers amendment,
relative to the F-22, limited to 30 minutes under the control of
Senator Bumpers, 10 minutes under the control of the chairman, and 5
minutes under the control of Senator Cleland; the Byrd amendment, with
20 minutes reserved prior to a vote on the Byrd amendment, which would
be 5 minutes for Senator Byrd, 5 minutes for Senator Levin, 5 minutes
for Senator Snowe, and 5 minutes for Senator Kennedy. Following that,
Senator Thompson will be recognized for a colloquy regarding State
taxation. Senator Ford will be recognized on the same subject for up to
10 minutes. Following that will be a Thurmond-Levin amendment relative
to pay, on which there will be 2 minutes, equally divided; a Burns
amendment relative to milcon, with 5 minutes equally divided; a McCain
second-degree amendment to the Burns amendment, limited to 5 minutes
under the control of Senator McCain and 10 minutes under the control of
Senator Stevens. Then the 2 managers will be recognized to do a series
of cleared amendments. Following that will be a Warner-Levin-Lott
amendment regarding the naming of the bill.
I further ask that following the disposition or conclusion of debate
on the above list of amendments, votes begin at no earlier than 8 p.m.
and no later than 8:30 p.m. in a stacked sequence, and that the Byrd
amendment relative to gender recur after disposition of the Bumpers
amendment, with 10 minutes equally divided for closing remarks, and a
vote to occur on the Byrd amendment.
I further ask that following the disposition of the Byrd amendment,
and prior to disposition of the Gramm amendment, 4 minutes be equally
divided on the Gramm amendment; that the Gramm amendment be deemed
agreed to, and the Senate proceed to the remaining sequenced votes,
with 2 minutes for debate between each vote for explanation.
I further ask that following the disposition of the above listed
amendments, the bill be advanced to the third reading.
Mr. President, in keeping with that, I have every expectation that
not all time that is allowed will be used under this time agreement, in
the interest of comity to other Senators who are having to leave the
country tonight on official business. I hope we can shrink these times
that have been agreed to.
Mr. President, I modify my agreement and ask that the 2 managers be
recognized after the vote on final passage to do a series of cleared
amendments.
Mr. COATS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. The Senator
from Indiana had requested time to speak on the Byrd amendment. I
thought it was going to be incorporated into the unanimous consent
request. I think it was inadvertently omitted. The Senator from Indiana
would like to have 5 minutes along with the others.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I modify the unanimous consent request and
ask that following the remarks of the Senator from Maine, the Senator
from Indiana be recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the Byrd amendment
as well.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I hope
not to. I have just been informed that we have to clear up one
additional issue on this side. I surely hope not to object. We worked
very hard on this unanimous consent agreement. We are going to have to
reserve that right for another couple of moments while one issue, and
possibly two, are cleared up, which I have just been informed about.
I suggest, if the Senator from Arizona is willing, laying aside the
unanimous consent request, and if the Senator from Maine would be
willing to be interrupted again, assuming we can quickly get clearance,
perhaps we could do that.
Mr. McCAIN. I will try not to have to repeat the unanimous-consent
agreement.
Mr. COATS. I just ask the Senator, if he would, instead of having the
Senator from Indiana speak on the Byrd amendment following the Senator
from Maine, if I could be incorporated into that order that was listed
there to speak immediately prior to Senator Byrd's closing on the Byrd
amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I further modify my unanimous-consent
request and ask that prior to the disposition of the vote on the Byrd
amendment, that there be 25 minutes equally divided, with 5 minutes for
Senator Byrd, 5 minutes for Senator Levin, 5 minutes for Senator Snowe,
5 minutes for Senator Kennedy, and 5 minutes for Senator Coats.
Mr. President, I will await approval from the other side of this
unanimous-consent request. I appreciate the patience and forbearance of
the Senator from Maine.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is temporarily withdrawn, and the
Senator from Maine is recognized.
Amendment No. 3011
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment that
has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia. As I said earlier,
I was very much surprised that he would offer such an amendment
because, first of all, last night, the Senate affirmed the
[[Page S7105]]
position of supporting the initiative that was taken by this Senate
last year in creating a commission to examine all of these far-reaching
issues with respect to gender-integrated training. That vote was 56-37.
It was a very strong vote in reinforcing the position of this body and,
yes, this Congress, that we needed to have an independent analysis of
many of the issues surrounding gender-integrated training.
In fact, I was very much surprised because the author of this
amendment, the Senator from West Virginia, was a primary cosponsor of
the initiative that was introduced in the Senate last year to create
this commission. I was a cosponsor of the amendment, and the prime
sponsor was Senator Kempthorne as Chair of the Subcommittee on
Personnel. We discussed that initiative in the committee. At first, I
didn't think it was necessary. After all, we had the Kassebaum-Baker
commission, and I didn't think we needed to duplicate those efforts.
But as I thought about it, I realized how important it was to create a
consensus on this issue because there were many Members within Congress
and outside that were still concerned about various aspects of gender-
integrated training at the basic training level.
I visited many installations. I understand the importance of creating
cohesiveness within a unit from day one. But I was also prepared to
accept the compromise, and the compromise was the creation of this
commission that was sponsored by Senator Kempthorne, cosponsored by the
Senator from West Virginia and myself in the committee.
I would like to read to you some words by the Senator from West
Virginia in the committee last year, with reference to this commission.
He said:
May I thank and congratulate Senator Kempthorne in offering
this amendment and conducting the hearings in relation to the
subject matter of the amendment. I congratulate, also, the
distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, who was
present at the hearings while Senator Snowe and all who
participated took an active part. Let me say that I am a
cosponsor of the Kempthorne amendment, and I thank Senator
Kempthorne for including me as a cosponsor. It will give us
an integrated set of conclusions and recommendations on the
various parts of the military gender issue, including
training, fraternization and adultery practices and
regulations. It will allow us an independent review by a body
selected by the Senate of the assessment and recommendations
to be made by all 3 bodies, established by Secretary Cohen to
look at the various elements of the issue. I congratulate
Secretary Cohen as well, in absentia, for proceeding to take
action as he has. The American people need to know we are
thoroughly investigating and settling the great uncertainties
that have arisen about the management of our Armed Forces. A
national debate is underway on this issue, and if we do not
resolve the issue satisfactorily, recruitment and retention
may be seriously affected. The deadline of April 15, 1998--
Which we ultimately postponed and deferred.
gives us ample time in the next session to act on whatever
recommendations we may choose to act upon.
The final legislation created a deadline of March of 1999, in which
this commission will come back to this Congress and make
recommendations with respect to all the issues that now have been
included in the Byrd second-degree amendment.
The second-degree amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia
includes all kinds of issues on basic training, separate platoons,
separate housing--all of the issues that ultimately will be evaluated
by this commission that is represented with a breadth of experience and
qualifications by 10 different individuals--individuals that are
appointed by the Chairman of the Armed Forces Committee here in the
Senate, ranking members and the leadership here in the Senate, as well
as the Chairman and the ranking member of the House National Security
Committee and their leadership. But the commission will appoint
individuals of knowledge and expertise in one or more of the following
areas:
Training of military personnel, social and cultural matters affecting
military service, military training, military readiness, knowledge and
expertise to be found through research, policymaking, practical
experience as demonstrated by retired military personnel and members of
the Reserve components of the Armed Forces, representatives from
educational organizations, civilian, as well as other government
agencies. They will look at functions related to gender-integrated
training and segregated basic training--looking at all of the
dimensions of these issues and the various components.
So that is why I hope the Members of the Senate will reject the
amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia. I hope the Senate
will elect to uphold the authority of this commission in place of
legislative segregation of males and females living together during
basic training and training together. We have separate housing for men
and women in basic training. And gender-integrated training has been
endorsed by every military leader who has come before the Senate Armed
Forces Committee. It has been endorsed by the Secretary of Defense; the
military chiefs of the Army, Air Force, and Navy; military training
commanders; senior noncommissioned officers of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force; and the U.S. Army. Every uniformed person who has testified
before the committee has endorsed gender-integrated training.
We should not be legislating our assumptions, as this amendment would
do which has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia. Rather, we
should, as we agreed to last year, allow a qualified panel of experts
and former military leaders to consider the myriad questions that
impact the effectiveness of gender-integrated training.
We have instructed the panel to assess the historic and current
rationale behind the implementation of gender-integrated training at
all skill levels. It requires an opinion of the policy within basic
training programs and teaching troops as they would operate. And,
towards this end, there are five standards to which the commission must
filter the training as operating concepts. It has to review adequate
physical conditioning, technical skills, proficiency, knowledge,
military socialization, to include the delegation of social values and
attitudes, as well as basic combat proficiencies.
Does anyone think in this Chamber that we can legislate answers and
insights on these complex questions with the incentive of adjourning in
time for a recess? Do we really think that we will be able to come up
with the rationale necessary to govern basic training for our Armed
Forces?
Mr. President, and Members of this body, I hope we will reject the
amendment that has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia. It
certainly will contravene the intent of this Congress last year in
creating a commission to examine all of these issues. But it also will
contravene the judgment of all of our top military officials who have
endorsed gender-integrated training.
Then we have had the support of gender-integrated training by diverse
groups such as the Rand Corporation, the Defense Equal Opportunity
Management Institute, the Army Research Institute, and the Defense
Advisory Commission on Women in the Services, or DACOWITZ. I would like
to have you listen to a few of their recommendations.
A December 1997 DACOWITZ report states: ``Trainers and trainees in
all services perceived that gender-integrated training during the
initial entry training phase of a service member's career was necessary
to effectively prepare trainees for duty in the field and the fleet.''
A February 1997 study by the U.S. Army Research Institute found that,
``Females trained in a gender-integrated environment improved their
performance on all measures of physical fitness, and males in gender-
integrated training improved in two of three events.'' This, by the
way, occurred with no change in the fitness standards.
Finally, we have been told over and over again that integration
training increases unit cohesion. That is why every military leader who
has come before the committee has endorsed it. Every single military
member who has testified before this Congress supports gender-
integrated training. Generals and privates, recruits and trainers, male
and female, uniformed and civilian--all agree that a military which
trains as it fights is the best prepared to meet the challenges of
tomorrow.
Let's review other comments of leaders.
[[Page S7106]]
The former Secretary of the Army, Togo West, and the Chief of Staff
of the Army, General Reimer, wrote that, ``Any proposal that calls for
gender segregation of both trainees and cadre violates the very
foundation of the Army: An integrated, effective and lethal force that
is ready to perform the mission anywhere and at any time.''
The senior noncommissioned officers from the services state clearly
that, ``Many successes in our gender-integrated all-volunteer force are
a direct result of the training Services currently provide.''
Admiral Pilling, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, supports gender-
integrated training as critical to helping recruits ``develop
interpersonal relationships that contribute to a healthy, effective,
gender-integrated force.''
So those are the many comments offered by our leaders, our military
leaders. They have had every opportunity to decide differently on the
issue of gender-integrated training. The Kassebaum-Baker commission
report came forward in December and in fact endorsed gender-integrated
training beyond basic training.
The Secretary of Defense gave an opportunity to all of the service
chiefs to come back and report to the Secretary within 90 days as to
how they would implement those recommendations--the ones which they
agreed with and those which they disagreed with. All of the services
came back and endorsed gender-integrated training as the best way to
create a cohesive, unified force to train to fight and to fight as they
would train.
Mr. President, I hope that on the basis of those who have endorsed
gender-integrated training and on the basis of those who have doubts--
that is the reason why the commission was created by this Congress, to
evaluate those areas in which people had doubts and concerns about
gender-integrated training. Even I endorsed the commission, as I said
earlier, because I think it is important to put to rest once and for
all of those concerns. That is why I endorsed this commission, as a way
in which we could allay the fears and concerns of many, to have experts
from a variety of professions and fields within the military, and even
outside the military, to evaluate for more than a year the dimensions
of this question.
So I hope, Mr. President, that the Members of this body will reject
the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia
so that we can allow the commission to do the job that we asked them to
do.
I hope that Members would support the amendment that was adopted last
night by 56 to 37 and protect the integrity of the congressional panel
on gender-integrated military training instead of trying to legislate
specific results without the benefit of deliberation. I hope that we
will confirm that judgment of last year and, indeed, last night by
rejecting the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from West
Virginia.
I remind this body that that commission was one that was endorsed
and, indeed, created as a result of the cosponsorship of the Senator
from West Virginia.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am strongly opposed to the Byrd
amendment which would require that all military services separate men
and women during basic training. I am opposed to this amendment for two
reasons.
First, yesterday during the deliberations of the Snowe amendment it
was stated that it was premature to make a determination on this issue,
that we should let the commission complete its work, that we should
wait for the final findings of the commission before taking any action.
Nothing has changed.
We have charged the commission with a task that we seem to have no
intention of letting them complete. Only upon careful study of the
commission's final report is it prudent to make a judgment that could
fundamentally alter the way in which the services conduct basic
training.
Second, the decision on how to train recruits should be made at the
individual service level, not by the Congress for every service, as if
they all had the same training requirements. To do otherwise is to do a
disservice to the men and women in our armed services. Men and women
numerous other overseas postings were trained in a gender integrated
environment. As a result, they are performing superbly in all aspects
of military life, in a gender integrated force.
The Marines and Army direct ground combat units conduct gender-
segregated basic training. For all other non-direct ground combat
roles, the services conduct gender integrated training. This is how
they will fight. And these decisions were made at the individual
service level, as one component of a larger force structure. And the
Congress should not now attempt to reverse these decisions.
Some ask, why should basic training be any different? But basic
training is where new recruits learn basic military values. Integrated
initial training makes sense. They will train and fight as an
integrated force for their entire military careers. There is no reason
why they should not begin to do so as early as possible. Doing so
increases the readiness of all our military forces.
The critics of gender integrated training will list recent incidents
of sexual harassment as an argument for gender segregation. However,
these incidents were largely committed by senior personnel against
junior personnel.
This kind of sexual harassment indicates poor leadership and not a
gender integration problem in training. All of the Services acknowledge
the importance of improving the quality of recruit training. Commanders
and drill instructors will exercise closer supervision over all
recruits. That is the best way to eliminate these abuses and ensure the
high level of readiness required for our national defense.
The Senior Noncommissioned Officers in each service say that one
training policy, which applies across all services, will have a
negative impact on readiness. Then why are we attempting to sacrifice
military readiness to gender-segregation? Numerous other military
officers and veteran's groups have weighed in on this issue each
supporting gender-integration. The senior officer in each service
supports gender-integration and moreover, believes that the decision
should be properly made at the service level--not in Congress.
We have come a long way toward full acceptance of women in the
military. But more needs to be done to ensure that the progress goes
forward in the coming years. Women will not continue to serve in a
military which discriminates against them. I look forward to a day when
more policies and programs affecting service members are implemented
without regard to gender. Women in the military deserve no less.
I urge you to reject this amendment.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Amendment No. 3012
(Purpose: To limit the obligation of advance procurement funds for the
F-22 fighter)
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] for himself and Mr.
Feingold proposes an amendment numbered 3012.
Mr. BUMPERS. 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:
Strike from line 1, page 25 through page 27, line 10, and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
SEC. 133. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE PROCUREMENT OF F-22 AIRCRAFT.
Amounts available for the Department of Defense for any
fiscal year for the F-22 aircraft program may not be
obligated for advance procurement for the six Lot II F-22
aircraft before the date that is 30 days after the date on
which the Secretary of Defense submits a certification to the
congressional defense committees that the Air Force has
completed 601 hours of flight testing of F-22 flight test
vehicles according to the test and evaluation master plan for
the F-22 aircraft program, as in effect of October 1, 1997.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Air Force is in the process of buying
by far the most expensive fighter plane the United States has ever
bought by a magnitude of 300 percent, to be precise. And that is if we
can build it at today's estimated cost. I have not made any bones about
the fact that I don't think we need the F-22, but we are going to get
it. I lost the battle to terminate the program, I admit. But if we are
going to spend $62 to $100 billion for 339
[[Page S7107]]
airplanes, we at least ought to fly that sucker before we buy it. And
therein lies the problem.
My staff found--the distinguished Presiding Officer will find this
interesting--a copy of an article from the January 9, 1989, Atlanta
Constitution. The Presiding Officer is familiar with that newspaper.
And the headline is ``The B-2: Fly Before You Buy.'' How many times
have my colleagues heard that term, ``fly before you buy''? No less
than a thousand.
My colleague, Senator Pryor, used to screech to the roof of this
Chamber about buying weapons before they have been tested.
Let me begin with a little history of the F-22. It is the Pentagon's
intention--and they usually get their way--to buy advanced F-18s, the
so-called E/F model. We are going to buy 30 of those next year. Then
the Pentagon also plans to buy the F-22, which is supposed to be the
greatest, most sophisticated piece of weaponry in the history of the
world. And we are going to buy 339 of those. And then in the year 2005
we will start buying 3,000 Joint Strike Fighters. It is going to be
stealthy, and it is going to be everything that anybody could ever
conjure up. It will be used by the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air
Force, the Brits, and perhaps some other members of NATO.
Mr. President, we are buying all these fighters in spite of the fact
that the intelligence community and everybody who knows anything about
an airplane knows that there isn't a plane in the world--in France, in
Russia, in China--that is even remotely comparable to our F-15 and our
F-18 and there won't be, the CIA says, for 15 to 20 years. So what is
the rush to judgment?
A little more about the F-22 and its checkered history. We started
out to buy over 600 F-22s, and the Air Force said, we will buy them at
a certain such cost. It became apparent that they could not even begin
to buy that many airplanes for those dollars, so they cut the number to
438. It turns out they could not buy 438 for that price, and Secretary
Cohen, to his eternal credit, said this is the amount of money we are
going to spend and no more. And so that took the number down to 339.
Sixty-two billion dollars, and we put a cost cap for that amount in
last year's Defense bill. Listen to this, that comes to $182 million
for each F-22 we buy. That is roughly three times more than we have
ever paid for a fighter plane.
So what is next? Lockheed Martin and the Air Force say in November of
1994 that the F-22 will require 1,400 hours of testing before we start
production. That sounded reasonable. Then in May of 1997 they say, no,
we don t need to do 1,400 hours; 601 hours of testing will be adequate.
And now guess what we are down to in this very bill we are debating.
You see the figure on this chart: 183 hours.
Mr. President, that comes out to only four percent of the four
percent of the F-22's whole 4,300 hour flight test program. Four
percent.
Now, the Defense Science Board and every flight evaluator and testing
expert will tell you that most of the complaints, most of the flaws in
an airplane, will, indeed, show up when you test it between 10 and 20
percent of the number of hours that it should be tested. But here we
are in February of 1988. In 1998, they said 183 hours. This bill that
we are debating was crafted in May of this year. Bear that in mind. A
lot of things have happened since then.
Mr. President, the Air Force the other day--as a matter of fact, it
wasn't the other day; it was yesterday--the Air Force sent a message to
every Senator's office saying, ``Here is why you ought to oppose the
Bumper's amendment.'' But they closed it out exactly the way I knew
they would close it out: 25,000 jobs--mostly in Georgia and some other
States.
Mr. President, here is how much we tested other fighters before we
made an initial purchase. The F-15 was tested for 975 hours before we
bought the first one; the F-16 was tested 1,115 hours before we bought
the first one; the F-18, 1,418 hours before we bought the first one;
and the F-18E/F, the follow-on model, which really didn't need all that
much testing, we tested for 779 hours. But do you know what else
happened. During flight testing of the F-18E/F, they discovered that it
had a problem. It was called ``wing drop.''
Now, if you listen to this illustration, you will know what you get
into when you do this business of buying before you fly. They had to
test-fly the F-18-E/F, they had to test-fly it almost 2,500 hours to
cure one flaw in a time-tested airplane.
We are spending $200 million a year on the B-1 bomber, and do you
know why? Because we didn't test it. We were so hot to buy that bomber
back during the cold war that we started buying the initial airplanes
before we even tested them.
We are spending over $200 million this year, and we will spend $198
million next year on it.
And so what came next? The next thing that came was the B-2 bomber,
and it is not fixed. And we are spending God knows how much money on it
every year because we didn't test it before we bought it.
What this bill does--I hope my colleagues will pay close attention to
this--this bill does not keep the Air Force from buying what they call
lot 1 of low rate initial production, two airplanes. We don't stop that
with my amendment. We don't change the bill. They can go ahead and buy
those two airplanes.
But then there is $190 million in this bill that is fenced, it is to
buy long-lead items for the next six airplanes. It says you cannot buy
them until you have tested it at least 183 hours and the Secretary
certifies a couple of things, then you can go ahead and start toward
$1.5 billion worth of airplanes, after 183 hours of testing.
I have a something here the Pogo Alert, put out by the Project on
Government Oversight. It says:
The contractors building the aircraft [referring to the F-
22] may be satisfied with a promise of future testing in
order to get the program funded now and will welcome getting
more money in the future to fix problems discovered too late.
But the Government should not walk into such a situation
knowingly. To avoid more problems with the F-22, the
Government merely needs to follow its own rhetoric of
adopting commercial best practices, and that means, in this
case, testing before producing, not after.
Once the waiver is issued by the Secretary of Defense, all bets are
off. We are headed for a $1.5 billion purchase of six airplanes. And
when we start running into trouble we will already be committed just as
we were on the B-1 and the B-2.
The Air Force says, ``We will test this airplane. We will get in the
183 hours before December.'' Would you like to know how many hours they
have tested it so far? As of June 16, they have tested it 6 hours. And
they say yes, but we are going to step that up to 15 hours a month. If
they do, in December they will have about 95--95 hours of testing.
My amendment says they ought to test this plane for 601 hours before
the initial purchase of these six production airplanes is made. That is
the amount the Air Force said they would do just last year. Why is it
that we are in such a sweat to get this unbelievably expensive airplane
built with not an enemy in sight, not anybody in the world with
airplanes to even come close to the F-15s and the F-18s and the F-16s?
Yet they want to go all out to start buying this airplane. And we know,
we know to a certainty that we are going to regret it. The testing so
far, incidentally, the 6 hours it has been tested, is on what they call
a clean airplane: No armaments, no sidewinders, no SRAMs, no nothing--
just a clean airplane, 6 hours of testing. And when you start putting
the armaments on it and in it, it takes on an entirely different
aerodynamic.
I get frustrated and too loud sometimes, because I cannot believe
what we do. Do you know what the Air Force told the GAO in 1992? Listen
to this. In 1992 they said: We don't have to rush anymore. The cold war
is over. We can take our time in testing weapons in the future. We do
not have to urge what we call concurrency. Concurrency is buying
airplanes while you are testing them. You are buying airplanes on the
come, betting on the come. You are betting that somehow or other,
whatever problems crop up, they can be solved. That is called
concurrency, and that is what the Air Force told the GAO, in 1992, that
it was not going to do. It said, we are not going to use concurrency as
an excuse to buy weapons in the future because we are not in that big
of a hurry.
[[Page S7108]]
Mr. President, I wish I could say that I thought Senators who were
listening, and those on the floor would take a very sensible view
toward testing an airplane before we buy it, particularly the most
expensive fighter plane we have ever bought. But I am not hopeful. I
have seen it happen too many times, planes being built in a lot of
States with a lot of jobs. Nobody wants to be accused of being soft on
defense. And they know to a certainty that the American public, by and
large, will never know what happened--just as they don't know what
happened in the case of the B-1 and the B-2. And their money will have
been spent.
Mr. President, it is the ``same old, same old.'' It is Lucy holding
the ball for Charlie Brown and swearing she won't pull it out from
under him this time. So it is a freebie. You can go ahead and vote
against this amendment and be ironclad sure you will never pay at the
polls. Nobody is going to say why did you spend that $62 billion to
$100 billion on that F-22 without even testing it? They don't know
about it, so you get a free ride.
Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am happy to respond to the Senator as a
member of the committee that has addressed this problem. I am just
looking back at the Senator from Arizona to see if he is prepared to
propound a unanimous consent request. I think this Senator and perhaps
the Senator from Arkansas are willing to proceed with the amendment and
will try to conform our remarks to the conditions of a unanimous
consent request, if the Senator from Arizona is prepared to propound
that yet. I am not sure that he is.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Unanimous Consent Agreement
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I renew my request with three
modifications: One is that cleared amendments be considered as prior to
the third reading; second is following the vote, following the debate
on the Bumpers amendment, Senator Faircloth be recognized for up to 10
minutes to propose a MilCon amendment; then, after the disposition of
the Byrd amendment, the only other amendment be a Harkin first-degree
amendment with a relevant Biden second-degree amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Relative to Kashmir.
Mr. McCAIN. Relative to Kashmir. Following that would be a vote on
the Faircloth amendment which had been debated earlier.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object--a
lot of hard work has gone into this. I would only ask a very slight
modification there, which is that Senator Daschle be added as a
cosponsor of the Warner-Levin-Lott amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. I also ask unanimous consent Senator Daschle be made a
cosponsor of the Warner-Levin-Lott amendment regarding the name of the
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is ordered Senator
Daschle will be made a cosponsor.
Mr. McCAIN. I also ask unanimous consent that the debate that has
already taken place be accounted against the 30 minutes for Senator
Bumpers and 10 minutes for Senator Coats and 5 minutes for Senator
Cleland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3012
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13 minutes.
Mr. BUMPERS. I have 13 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the Bumpers amendment? The
Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think I have 10 minutes under the
previous order. I yield myself those 10 minutes. I may reserve some of
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the Armed Services Committee has discussed
in great detail the very situation that the Senator from Arkansas
raises. We held numerous hearings. I had numerous private meetings with
members of the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense,
contractors and others on this question.
Last year, in the authorization bill, I offered an amendment to
impose cost caps and a number of accountability features on the F-22,
not as an opponent of the F-22, but as a proponent of the F-22, a
marvelous new advance in technology that I believe is needed, but one
in which this Congress has an absolute responsibility to ensure that
the engineering, manufacturing, development, flight testing and
production schedules are done in such a way that provides
accountability to the taxpayer, gives us the product that we are
looking for, and gives it to us in a manner that we can afford.
The last thing we want is for the F-22 to go the way of the B-2 where
we get part way into a program, and because the costs become so
excessive, we have to cancel the program or stop the program where it
is, or the B-1, which was rushed into production without adequate
testing, and we have encountered numerous problems with that platform
ever since.
In recognition of the very issue that the Senator from Arkansas
raises; that is, rushing to production before we have completed
adequate preproduction flight test hours, this committee, after
considerable negotiation with proponents, opponents and all those in
between of the F-22, has arrived at a committee consensus that we will
require a specified number of flight test hours and that any money that
is designated for production will be fenced and not released until that
threshold is met.
We arrived at that number on the basis of intense discussions with
the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, the
contractor and others, recognizing that given new flight testing
techniques and production techniques, what will be required for the F-
22 may not necessarily be what was required for tactical airplanes
developed in the past. Nevertheless, we want to be assured that we have
at least reached a minimum threshold before any funds can be released.
We built a little window in here for the Secretary of Defense to
certify that under these new testing techniques, manufacturing
techniques, and engineering techniques that a lesser number of hours is
required. He can waive a certain portion of those flight test hours,
but not below a certain level.
We have requested that no waiver can be granted at a level below 183
flight test hours, a level which the Department of the Air Force, the
Secretary of Defense, the contractor and everybody involved in this
feels is adequate.
We require more than that. We require that 10 percent of plan
schedule for flight testing be completed before those fenced funds are
obligated for production. However, we do allow for a waiver.
The bottom line here is that the Committee agrees with the Senator
from Arkansas that not enough flight testing has taken place and that
we shouldn't go forward. In fact, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology, Mr. Gansler, has already delayed the
production decision for 1 year on the basis of the fact that there have
been delays in the planned schedule for flight testing and that we need
more flight testing.
By the same token, we are trying to balance the risk of going forward
with fewer hours than what we normally would require with the risk of
incurring very substantial additional costs as we slip production time
schedules, as we delay moving from the engineering, manufacturing and
development phase to preproduction phase or, in this case, production
phase. And we are trying to balance all that. We have arrived at a
pretty delicate compromise.
I will say that we do agree with the Senator that we need more flight
testing hours before we rush into production, but we do also have to
recognize that we have put demands on the contractor and the Air Force
in terms of a fixed-price contract which requires a great commitment on
their part at substantial risk, and we have to find an acceptable
balance.
[[Page S7109]]
We think we have found that balance. As I say, those proponents of
the F-22 on the committee, and the opponents of the F-22, and those in
the middle have agreed this is an acceptable balance. The only thing I
will say about the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas is that it
goes a little further than the provision agreed to in the committee,
and I believe we should hold to the committee position on this, because
it does achieve that very delicate balance between the extra costs that
will incur if we demand more testing, and the risk of not having enough
flight testing.
We have built a 6-percent--between a 4- and 10-percent window in
there, but we require the Secretary of Defense to put his signature on
the line and his Department's credibility on the line before we waive
below the 10 percent level.
For that reason, I urge Members to support the committee position. We
will be going to conference with that and hope that they will
understand that the underlying bill addresses the problem raised by the
Senator from Arkansas, and we think it addresses it in a way that
allows us to gain confidence that before we go to production, we have
completed adequate flight testing. And yet our position also takes into
consideration the fact that under a fixed-price contract and under the
requirements that are imposed on the contractor and the Air Force, we
are not incurring these substantial additional costs through the delay.
For that reason, I hope Members will support the committee position.
Any remaining time I have I reserve, and I yield the floor.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 5 minutes in
opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for
doing his homework. He is very courageous in touching on one of the
serious issues regarding the F-22.
All of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, including
myself, were rightly concerned about the issue of whether enough flight
testing on the F-22 would be accomplished prior to making an informed
decision on whether to proceed with low-rate initiation production. The
dilemma we faced was simple:
Do we move forward with the program at the risk that unknown problems
would arise causing significant cost overruns and delays or do we shut
down the production line in response to our concerns about testing
which would certainly lead to cost overruns and a delay in the program?
The Catch-22 we found ourselves in was not an easy one to solve. The
Armed Services Committee took this head on, and I believe we arrived at
an approach that addresses the testing issue, while also addressing the
issue of keeping the program on track. Let me briefly explain what the
Armed Services Committee did:
First, we fenced Lot II funding, and made it absolutely
contingent upon completion of 183 test hours. Let me repeat: It is
absolutely contingent upon completion of 183 hours. If that level of
testing cannot be done in FY-99, Lot II funding will not be released.
Second, the committee placed an additional restriction on release of
funding for Lot II. The Air Force must complete 433 flight-test hours
or the Secretary of Defense must certify that less than 433 hours is
acceptable, explaining why less than 433 is acceptable, showing how
less than 433 hours is consistent with prior Defense Acquisition board
recommendations, and showing why it is more cost-advantageous to
proceed with Lot II than to delay the production line.
These requirements are real. They are tough. they are realistic.
Let me offer some perspective on the first requirement. Prior to an
initial production decision for 2 aircraft, the F-22 will have 183
flight test hours. In comparison, the F-16 had only 21 flight test
hours prior to initial production decision for 16 aircraft--162 less
than the F-22. The F-18 A/B had no flight test hours prior to an
initial production decision for nine aircraft.
The second threshold, the completion of 433 hours or a certification
for less than that provides us with this. The F-22 program has changed
in many ways. And so many things have changed the way aircraft are
designed and built today. With the advances in technology and concerns
for keeping control of costs, in the future more and more testing will
be done without actual flight test hours.
It is undisputed that flight test requirements cannot be replaced
entirely, but there are certain amounts of simulations and ground
testing that can take the place of actual in-flight tests.
Here is what the F-22 has gone through, to date: 153 prototype flight
test hours--on high angle-of-attack, supercruise, and thrust vectoring
technology; over 365,000 equivalent flight test hours on aircraft
components and subcomponents; over 23,000 hours of software/hardware
integration testing; over 6,000 hours of engine testing; 600 hours of
high-fidelity radar cross section model testing; 450,000 hours of
avionic ground tests; 123,000 hours of component structural tests;
2,000 hours of engine ground tests; 43,000 hours of wind tunnel
testing. More importantly, there has been 25,000 hours of scaled wind
tunnel testing without experiencing the ``wing drop'' phenomenon
discovered in the F-18E/F wind tunnel testing.
The Senate Armed Services Committee provisions would require the
Secretary of Defense to certify all of this and make the case that less
than 433 flight test hours on this gives us the level of confidence to
proceed.
I would like to say, Mr. President, that I speak in opposition to the
Bumpers amendment. The Air Force informs us that a delay in the F-22
program associated with not being able to meet overly stringent
requirements could increase the program some $4 billion.
So, Mr. President, I speak in opposition to the amendment and yield
the remainder of my time.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my
support for the amendment offered by my friend from Arkansas.
I am proud to have worked with the distinguished Senator on a number
of issues during the past five years and I will miss his leadership and
friendship. One of the many issues on which I have had the pleasure to
work with him is the Defense Department's tactical aircraft programs.
I am a proud co-sponsor of this most sensible amendment. I find it
hard to believe that anyone could oppose an amendment that makes sure
the Air Force flight tests its multi-billion dollar F-22 aircraft less
than half the number of hours the Air Force itself planned to fly
before moving to begin production.
Just this past Monday, the DoD's Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation told Congress that the F-22 will have approximately 100
hours of flight tests by December, not the 183 the Air Force expects.
And that is less than one third the number of hours that the Air Force
itself said was desirable just last year. In essence, Mr. President,
the Air Force wants to begin producing F-22s at a cost of about one
hundred billion tax dollars after completing about 7 percent of its
originally planned flight tests. Does this seem like a good idea?
By comparison, the F-15 flew for 975 hours before a production
contract award; the F-16 for 1,115 hours; and even the much-flawed
Super Hornet had 779 flight test hours before a production contract was
awarded.
There is a direct correlation between flying hours and expansion of
an aircraft's flight envelope. It takes flying hours to explore an
aircraft's performance at all airspeeds and altitudes and in various
configurations.
Remember, Mr. President, prototype tests, ground tests, wind tunnel
tests and computer simulations did not predict the Super Hornet's
program-threatening wing drop problem, which took 2,500 hours of flight
tests to solve.
Mr. President, this amendment just makes common sense. We need to
make sure the taxpayers are getting all they're paying for. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back to the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
amendment offered by Senator Bumpers that would fence in funding for
advanced procurement for the six Lot II F-22 aircraft until 601 hours
of flight testing of F-22 flight test vehicles has been completed and
reported. By requiring the completion of an absolute number of
[[Page S7110]]
test flight hours before releasing funds, this amendment places on the
F-22 program constraint which would slow down the program, increase
costs and jeopardize full procurement of the Air Force's requirement
for this weapon.
First, I would like to note that the Armed Services Committee has
already placed conditions on funding for the six Lot II F-22's. The
Committee, in this very bill, included language mandating that
procurement funds for these aircraft will not be released until the F-
22 has completed 433 hours of flight testing, or the Secretary of
Defense determines that a number of hours of flight testing less than
433 provides a sufficient basis for deciding to proceed to production.
From what we know of this plane it has performed well. The F-22 meets
or exceeds all expectations, and I expect this course to continue.
It is estimated that this amendment would delay the F-22 program up
to one year. By breaking production lines and undermining firm fixed
price contracts, production would have to wait while testing is
completed, even if the F-22 has fully demonstrated its capabilities and
the Defense Department has full confidence that the plane is ready for
production. This delay would, in turn, increase costs of the program by
up to $4 billion. This substantial cost increase would break the
Congressionally mandated cost caps, at full expense to the tax payer,
and risk full procurement of the Air Force's requirement.
Mr. President, the approach to the issue of flight test hours is most
appropriately addressed by the Armed Services Committee in the Defense
Authorization bill. This approach makes flight test requirements an
essential component of full funding while providing the flexibility to
proceed with the program should the F-22 prove, as it has already, that
it is a plane ahead of its time. Our country cannot afford to let this
program get off track. The F-22 is a vital component of our future
national security. We must fund it, we must build it and we must fly
it.
Mr. LEVIN. I thought the Senator from Arkansas might want to
conclude, so I would use the remainder of the 3 minutes of the Senator
from Indiana.
Mr. BUMPERS. Pardon?
Mr. LEVIN. I will use the balance of the time of the Senator from
Indiana, and then the Senator from Arkansas can finish.
Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, the Senator from Arkansas has again
identified a significant problem in terms of our defense procurement.
We were very much concerned with this problem in the Armed Services
Committee in the manner which the Senator from Indiana described.
The difficulty that we face is that there is going to be some risks
either way. If there is a delay here, as the amendment of the Senator
from Arkansas would require, there would be a 14-month gap,
approximately, before the advanced procurement funds could be
obligated. And that gap in this production line will be costly to the
extent perhaps of $2.75 billion.
Now, on the other hand, in the testing which we need to displace some
significant problems with the F-22, we are going to also have some
significant costs. So either way, we have to face some risks--either
way--whether we do it the committee way or whether we do it the way of
the Senator from Arkansas.
We felt on the committee it was better to do it our way, to let the
Secretary of Defense, if he must waive some of those testing hours
before the obligation of the advanced procurement money require that he
certify that the financial risks that are there either way would be
greater from his not certifying than from his certifying.
So we are trying to reduce the risks through this process, the
financial risks that are going to exist either way. But in supporting
the committee position, and in opposing the amendment of the Senator
from Arkansas, I again commend him for taking the time to get inside
one of these issues. He is one of the few Senators who is willing to
get inside one of these complicated defense procurement issues and
point out the complexities, and in this case what he considers to be
the error of a particular procurement process in which we are engaged.
And so while I disagree with him, again, I commend him and thank him
for the time he has taken on this issue.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan for his
very fine comments.
I have a couple of questions. No. 1, if 601 hours was the right
number of preproduction tests last year, why is 183 hours the right
number this year?
If you want to use apples and apples, you compare flight hours prior
to award of a production contract. This chart shows the preproduction
flight hours here. Those planes were tested this amount: 975 hours for
the F-15; 1,115 hours for the F-16; and 1,418 hours for the F-18--
preproduction hours.
And what are we going to do for the F-22? 183.
And let me repeat, when you talk about how much more this is going to
cost, $3 or $4 billion more, if we do not do this--you tell me, what if
the Secretary does not wait? They still have to test 433 hours, and
presumably you are going to get into the same cost figures of a $3 to
$4 billion cost overrun.
And while I am at it, let me ask the Air Force and Lockheed Martin
this question: If you did not know, if they did not know that this
committee, the Armed Services Committee--if they did not know that the
required test hours were going to be cut from 600 to 183, why did they
make those commitments that would generate a $3 to $4 billion cost
overrun? Why are we responsible for the cost overrun that they have
incurred--not us--they?
Oh, Mr. President, it is so frustrating.
I want to say this on the floor. Everyone knows I am leaving at the
end of this year. I am not running for reelection. And, you know, it is
no fun saying ``I told you so" when you are in a little country town
down in Arkansas instead of on the Senate floor. I told this body years
ago that when push came to shove the space station costs were going to
start escalating.
You listen to this. I told you years ago that the space station was
going to cost well over $100 billion. And now it is almost up to $100
billion and rising. Since October 1, the cost overrun, just to build
it--not deploy it--just to build it is 44 percent in 8 months.
And this F-22 fighter, this airplane is going to cost this body and
this country more headaches than you will ever dream of. And tonight is
an opportunity to avoid it. Why do we insist on going headlong into the
production of an airplane this expensive, this sophisticated, which
requires even more testing because of the new sophisticated equipment
it has on it? And it is stealthy, all of those things.
So I will tell you tonight--and I will not be here to say ``I told
you so''--you are making a fatal mistake. You will regret it. The cost
of this airplane is going to be a lot more than $62 billion.
When the Air Force said, ``We'll build it for $62 billion,''
Secretary Cohen said, ``OK, that's what we're going to build it for.''
They said, ``How many can you build?'' They said, ``Three hundred
thirty-nine.'' So last year, courtesy of my good friend from Michigan,
Senator Levin, and Senator Coats, and Senator McCain, we took the Air
Force's word, and we put the total cost at $62 billion--$182 million
each.
And we hadn't anymore got it ink printed, the ink wasn't dry, before
the Air Force says, ``I'm sorry, we can't do it. We have to lift that
cap.'' You know something else? It will be lifted. It will be lifted.
Nothing is ever permanent around here. How we deceive ourselves and get
by with it.
The only satisfaction I will get out of this evening is knowing that
sometime in the not-too-distant future I will be proven correct. Would
you buy an automobile that had been tested for 6 hours, or even 183
hours? You wouldn't buy a Jeep that had only been tested for 183 hours,
but we are going to spend $100 billion on 339 airplanes.
I yield the floor, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Tennessee was to be
recognized for a colloquy, but the Senator is not here.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
[[Page S7111]]
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
colloquy of the Senator from Tennessee be entered in the Record and I
may be permitted to introduce my amendment at this time.
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, the unanimous consent
request was that the colloquy of the Senator from Tennessee be entered
into the Record at this time.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. That was my request.
Mr. LEVIN. I want to see if there is an objection to that because----
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thought the
Senator from Tennessee would be here to do his own business and I
didn't realize the Senator from North Carolina was going to make the
motion. I prefer that he not make it so I can have an opportunity--I
understood the Senator from North Carolina will have an amendment he
will propose.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. That is correct.
Mr. FORD. Why don't I object to the colloquy of the Senator from
Tennessee being entered into the Record, set that aside, so when the
colloquy goes in, I will have an opportunity then to present my side of
the question; would that be agreeable?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. That would be satisfactory with me.
Mr. FORD. So they are withdrawing the unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Now, has the debate terminated on the Bumpers
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.
If there is no objection, the Senator from North Carolina is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator from North Carolina would now be recognized
according to the time agreement.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry just to clarify the
situation. As I understand the situation, the Senator from North
Carolina is going to then proceed with his amendment now, ahead of the
colloquy of the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Kentucky.
Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the Chair's understanding.
Mr. LEVIN. That time has been reserved to the Senators from Tennessee
and Kentucky?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 3014
(Purpose: To authorize, with an offset, $8,300,000 for the construction
of the National Guard Military Educational Facility at Fort Bragg,
North Carolina)
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. 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 North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] proposes an
amendment numbered 3014.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 321, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
SEC. 2603. NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITY, FORT
BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--The amount authorized
to be appropriated by section 2601(1)(A) is hereby increased
by $8,300,000.
(b) Availability of Funds.--Funds available as a result of
the increase in the authorization of appropriations made by
subsection (a) shall be available for purposes of
construction of the National Guard Military Educational
Facility at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
(c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 2404(a)(9) is hereby reduced by $8,300,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes, 10
minutes equally divided on this issue.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, it was 10 minutes for me. It was not
equally divided. Now, if it is equally divided, it can go to 20
minutes. I asked for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from North Carolina is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes
appropriations for construction of a National Guard training facility
at Fort Bragg. If anyone has seen the facility that the Guard from four
States is using at Fort Bragg, he would agree it is a disgrace. It is a
disgrace to the Guard. It is a disgrace to the Government. It is a
disgrace to the Army. In fact, the buildings are so old and so run down
that they were mistaken by the XVIII Airborne Corps deputy commander as
abandoned and so ordered them demolished--they were such an eyesore--
until he was informed that they were the National Guard facility.
This new training facility will be used by the National Guard and
reservists and active-duty personnel from four southeastern States--
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.
It is simply wrong to continue to train and berth our guardsmen in
World War II buildings that, when they were built, it was announced
that they were temporary and going to last 10 years. Now we are 50-plus
years putting our National Guard into these buildings. They were
temporarily constructed in 1941, to last for 10 years and then to be
taken down. They are still there. We are still housing the National
Guard in them. The water supply is unsafe, and they have to haul in
water in buckets for the National Guard to drink. And we talk about
quality of life.
We expect much from the National Guard. We count on these troops to
handle any assignment that is given to them--in war, peacekeeping, or
national disasters. Yet we have put them in facilities that are a
disgrace to the military. They deserve the same level of accommodations
that we are building at other bases around the country.
I was not elected to the Senate by the people of North Carolina to
stand by and listen to Defense Department bureaucrats and autocratic
officers. I grew up believing that this was a country in which a
civilian authority controlled the military. I have gotten here and I
have seen this thing we call the FYDP, or whatever it is, but it now
gives the military officers the total authority to set the goals of
what we do. And we simply stand by, vote for it, and raise the money.
This is not a civilian-controlled military. We are a civilian nation
controlled by an autocratic military.
This is a worthy and worthwhile project. It should be funded. The
National Guard does, as we expect it to, make a worthwhile and very
necessary contribution to the country. They deserve to be treated
better. But, instead they start talking about saving money by the
military.
If ever there was a waster of money, where spending is out of
control--and we just heard from Senator Bumpers--it's the military. We
have heard it over and over and over.
This is $8.5 million to replace 50-year-old temporary buildings, and
they say, ``No, we can't do it; we need the money for something else.''
Now, we are wasting billions of dollars in Bosnia, billions were wasted
in Somalia and Haiti. If ever it was wasted, that was wasting it. They
say we can't afford $8.5 million for four States' National Guards to
have a decent place for encampment.
No; the President is on his way or in China with 1,000 people with
him--1,000. I question that he needs them, every one, when we say we
can't afford $8.5 million for a National Guard barracks at Fort Bragg.
No. We are not a civilian population controlling a military. We
changed that rule, and we decided that we would be controlled by a
military--a military of arrogant officers, entrenched bureaucrats that
simply write out what they want and we, like little toadies, follow.
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.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, we will now be
recognizing the Senator from Tennessee and then the Senator from
Kentucky.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the moment, we yield back any time on
the Faircloth amendment.
Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Under the unanimous-consent
agreement, would the Chair please advise the Senate as to the next
matter. I don't have the agreement before me.
[[Page S7112]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If Senator Thompson is not here, then Senator
Ford would be next.
Mr. WARNER. For the moment, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
Thompson matter and now proceed to the Thurmond-Levin amendment
relative to pay.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Amendment No. 3015
(Purpose: To increase the percent by which the rates of basic pay are
to be increased)
Mr. THURMOND. 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 South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for
himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Levin, Mr. Warner, Mr. McCain, Mr.
Coats, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr.
Inhofe, Mr. Santorum, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Roberts, proposes an
amendment numbered 3015.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 110, line 13, strike out ``3.1 percent.'' and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
``3.6 percent.
``(c) Offsetting Reductions in Authorizations of
Appropriations.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of
title I, the total amount authorized to be appropriated under
title II is hereby reduced by $150,000,000.
``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of title II, the
total amount authorized to be appropriated under title II is
hereby reduced by $275,000,000.''
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this amendment would authorize a 3.6
percent pay raise for military personnel.
Mr. President, increasing military pay is something the Committee
wanted to do when we marked-up our bill. However, when we completed our
mark-up six weeks ago, it was just not possible. Many Senators will
recall that we were facing an almost insurmountable outlay problem in
the defense budget. The Budget Committee, the Armed Services Committee
and the Appropriations Committee were engaged in intense discussions to
find a solution that would not adversely impact our national security.
Now that we have been able to review and analyze the defense
authorization and appropriations mark-ups of both bodies, we have
identified programs which are hollow. We will use this hollow budget
authority and outlays to pay for increasing military pay from the 3.1
percent requested by the President to the 3.6 percent level indicated
by the Employment Cost Index. We will, of course, make the necessary
adjustments to eliminate the hollow programs during our conference with
the House.
Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Both Senator
Stevens and Senator Inouye have joined the Members of the Armed
Services Committee as co-sponsors of the amendment.
Several weeks ago, the Joint Chiefs were briefed on recruiting and
retention problems in the services and directed their staffs to review
actions they could take to increase military pay. I am pleased that we
are able to find a way to give our military personnel the pay raise
they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Will the chairman yield for a question?
Mr. THURMOND. I am pleased to.
Mr. WARNER. I would like to be added as a cosponsor. I am sure the
chairman would agree with me that Senator McCain was very active in
bringing to our attention the matters of the pay raise.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Warner be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Burns' amendment relating to
MilCon would be the next item. We are anxious to move on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has one minute.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we support the amendment. A number of
Democratic members of the Armed Services Committee are already
cosponsors, I believe, on the amendment. If not, I will ask unanimous
consent that we be added as cosponsors. I believe the names of those
cosponsors are already on the amendment. We support this amendment as
an offset. It corrects a deficiency building up in military pay for
some time. We think it is a good amendment and I hope it is adopted by
the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3015) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that
we can recognize the Senator from Oklahoma. He has worked out a
resolution of the amendment by the Senator from North Carolina.
I understand they will need a few more minutes.
unfair state income tax
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I was planning to offer an amendment to
this bill that would provide relief to the 2,200 civilian Tennesseans
working at Ft. Campbell who are being unfairly taxed by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky. My amendment would also provide relief to
South Dakotans working on the Gavins Point Hydroelectric Dam who are
being unfairly taxed by Nebraska, and the Washingtonians working on the
Columbia River Hydroelectric Dams who are being unfairly treated by
Oregon. I am joined in my efforts by Senators Frist, Gorton, Daschle,
Murray, and Johnson.
Mr. President, the folks working at these facilities may live in
Tennessee or South Dakota, but they are being forced to pay state
income tax to Kentucky and Nebraska, even though they receive
absolutely no services or benefits from these states. These employees
are being unfairly taxed by their non-resident state simply because
their work takes them across the border into the neighboring state.
The employees enter the neighboring state only on federal property.
They do not travel on the neighboring states' roads during the course
of their work. There is no reciprocal tax agreement between the two
states to ensure that individuals pay tax only to one state (as is
usually the case between neighboring states). So, these employees are
fully supporting the governments of both their resident state and the
neighboring state.
At Fort Campbell, Tennessee civilians enter Fort Campbell on the
Tennessee side of the post and cross into Kentucky on a Fort Campbell
road that is maintained by the federal government. The Tennesseans do
not travel on a Kentucky road to reach the Kentucky side of the post.
And all emergency fire, police and medical services at Fort Campbell
are provided by the federal government.
We have a situation where Tennesseans are forced to pay the same
Kentucky state income tax as a Kentucky resident, but they are not
eligible to receive any benefits from the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
such as unemployment compensation, in-state tuition, in-state hunting
licenses or in-state fishing licenses.
The federal employees working at the Gavins Point Dam and the
Columbia River Dams face comparable situations.
My amendment is very narrowly drawn so as not to establish a broad
precedent. It would only affect the three listed facilities. In the
past, Congress has acted to provide tax relief in similar extraordinary
situations. Congress has exempted active duty military personnel,
Members of Congress and their staffs, and Amtrak and other multi-state
transportation employees from taxation except by their resident states.
The legislation on which my amendment is based, H.R. 1953, has passed
the other body twice this Congress and was reported by the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs by a vote of 15 to 0. It is currently
pending in the Senate
[[Page S7113]]
Finance Committee. The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, has
expressed his support for this measure.
Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Kentucky has
clearly indicated his intention to prevent the Senate from voting on my
amendment. It is not my intent to hold up action on the DOD
Authorization bill. I want to ask my distinguished colleague from South
Carolina, the Chairman of the Committee, then for an assurance that he
will work with me and the other cosponsors of this amendment in the
conference to retain the provision identical to my amendment that was
included in the other body's version of the DOD Authorization bill.
This is a very serious matter for my state of Tennessee, for South
Dakota and for Washington state, which must be addressed.
Mr. THURMOND. I appreciate how important this matter is to the
Senators from Tennessee, South Dakota and Washington. I say to the
Senator that, while I cannot make preconference agreements on outcome,
I will work with him to try to retain the House provision in final
conference agreement.
Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chairman for his cooperation and
assistance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I believe I have 10 minutes under the
unanimous-consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson,
just entered a colloquy as it related to the tax situation between
Kentucky and Tennessee. I wanted to be sure that my remarks on the
unconstitutionality of that amendment were brought to the attention of
my colleague.
Mr. President, there is a provision in the House version of this bill
that really astounds me. I am referring to an amendment to title X of
the House bill which was offered by Congressman Bryant. I wish to bring
it to the attention of the managers. It is a tax issue involving the
States of Kentucky and Tennessee. Let me restate that. It is a tax
issue--not even a federal tax issue, but a state tax issue--and it is
mentioned in the House version of this bill.
The House bill contains language which preempts state tax laws and
lays out how federal and private sector employees who may do work at
the Fort Campbell Army installation should be taxed by states. I think
all Senators should be concerned by the precedent set by this language.
Let me make a few points relevant to this language.
The language in the House bill raises fundamental TAX issues. It is
within the jurisdiction of the Finance and Ways and Means Committees.
It has no place on this bill.
The House tax language involves issues that should be decided among
States. Congress should not be dictating state tax policies in a
Defense Authorization bill. Congress should not be preempting state tax
laws in a Defense bill.
At my urging, our Governor's office has contacted the Tennessee
Governor's office. Revenue officials from both States have had
preliminary discussions in the last few weeks. We should allow this
process of negotiation to continue. That is the usual way in which
States deal with tax issues like this one. Not on the floor of the
House or Senate.
The House tax language will cost my State $4 million in lost revenue.
The Governor of Kentucky strongly opposes a Congressional attempt to
preempt State tax laws in this manner. I ask unanimous consent that a
letter of opposition to this language from the Governor of Kentucky be
printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Commonwealth of Kentucky,
Office of the Governor,
Frankfurt, KY, June 25, 1998.
Hon. Wendell Ford,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ford: I am writing to express Kentucky's
opposition to the Thompson amendment currently under
consideration by the United States Senate. The issue
addressed by this legislation is the tax imposed by the
Commonwealth on income earned within Kentucky by non-resident
federal workers.
The protest by federal workers employed at the Fort
Campbell military base against the imposition of the Kentucky
income tax has centered on their contention that the tax is
unfair to them. All income in question is taxed the same
whether earned by a resident or non-resident of Kentucky.
Only the income earned within the Commonwealth of Kentucky is
taxed. It would be unfair to tax the income of residents but
not the income of non-residents doing the same job in the
same place. Indeed, if this were the case, it would make
sense for Kentucky residents working on the Fort Campbell
base to move to Tennessee to avoid the Kentucky income tax.
On June 23, 1998, Kentucky's Attorney General sent to me a
memorandum which offers a compelling and reasonable argument
against the constitutionality of the Thompson amendment under
the Commerce Clause. A consequence of this amendment would be
its detrimental impact on the Kentucky communities which
surround Fort Campbell. The legislation would exceed
Congressional authority and would likely be proven as
unconstitutional. Congress granted the states the power to
tax income, and on several occasions, courts have held that
states can assess an income tax to nonresidents who earn
their income in that state. Congress can reduce the states'
power of taxation, but only through an amendment within the
confines of the Commerce Clause.
We are attempting to resolve this issue through a joint
effort with Tennessee Governor Sundquist's office. This
matter is one to be settled at the state level, and not an
issue for Congress to resolve. The impacts of the Thompson
amendment would far surpass Fort Campbell. These impacts
would extend to the employees of every federal institution
within close proximity with state borders.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that Kentucky's
taxation of non-residents working in Kentucky is fair in
concept and in practice. To exempt all non-residents or a
special group of non-residents who work in Kentucky would be
unfair. If I may provide you with any other information on
this issue, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Patton,
Governor.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this House tax language is strongly opposed
by the Federation of Tax Administrators. These are the revenue
officials from all 50 States and the District of Columbia. They believe
this amendment creates a horrible precedent of preempting State tax
laws. I ask unanimous consent that a letter in opposition to this
language from the Federation of Tax Administrators be printed in the
Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Federation of Tax Administrators,
Washington, DC, June 24, 1998.
Hon. Wendell H. Ford,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ford: I am writing concerning amendments to
the defense appropriations bills (S. 2057) which would
preempt Oregon, Kentucky and Nebraska from applying their
income taxes to certain federal employees (and in some cases
contractors) who work in those states, but reside in
bordering states with no income taxes (Washington, Tennessee
and South Dakota).
These amendments have been separately considered earlier in
the 105th Congress as H.R. 1953. The Federation of Tax
Administrators is an association of the principal tax
administration agencies in the 50 states, the District of
Columbia and New York City. The Federation has adopted a
policy which urges that the Senate reject H.R. 1953 and any
similar language which may be offered as an amendment to
other bills.
We ask the Senate to recognize that, throughout the history
of income taxation, both federal and state, workers are taxed
by the jurisdiction where the work is performed. This system
represents the keystone of taxation. State lawmakers make
exceptions to this system to address individual circumstances
where strict adherence to the principle leads to undesirable
results. In particular, in those instances where sound fiscal
and government policy permit, a state may enter into a
reciprocal agreement with a bordering state to permit
taxpayers to file a single return in the state of residency.
Kentucky is at the forefront of such policy refinements--it
has a reciprocal agreement with every border state that has a
broad-based individual income tax. (The agreements do not
function with non-income-tax states such as Tennessee, and
thus they are not applicable in this case.)
The U.S. Constitution imposes substantive constraints on
the manner in which states may structure their tax systems.
These constraint ensure that the tax imposed meets
fundamental tests of fairness in dealing with all citizens.
The Constitution further ensures that state taxes do not
impose undue burdens on interstate commerce or the federal
government. The taxes imposed by these states meet these
requirements and should not be preempted. There is no
question that states have the legal authority to tax the
income of nonresidents working in Oregon, Kentucky or
Nebraska.
What this amendment would do is carve out a special tax
benefit for workers who choose to live (or move) out of state
that would not be available to any other employees working at
the same location. Further,
[[Page S7114]]
the language exempts from taxation wages paid to federal
workers in Oregon and Nebraska--but it exempts from tax
income paid to all individuals who work in Fort Campbell in
Kentucky. This encompasses not only contract employees who
work directly for the military (for instance, school
teachers), but also includes the employees of private
companies who run businesses or perform services on the base,
including such businesses as restaurants and road maintenance
firms. These are clearly private businesspeople, not federal
workers. If Kentucky is to be preempted from taxing
individuals who work for the federal government, we
particularly urge the Senate to adopt language that more
precisely defines the matter. (More precise definitions have
been offered by the Pentagon.)
Finally, and most importantly, if change is necessary, it
is within the power of the states involved to do so. This is
an issue for state lawmakers, not federal lawmakers.
Lawmakers in Kentucky and Tennessee are seeking an equitable
solution that would not impose an unfair burden on either
state. Oregon has already passed a law that exempts from
taxation those federal employees who work on the dam in
Oregon. (We would emphasize that to continue to include
Oregon in this bill is unnecessary and an insult to the
elected officials of that state.)
The ability to define their tax systems within the bounds
of the Constitution is one of the core elements of
sovereignty preserved to the states under the Constitution. A
central feature of this sovereignty is the ability to tax
economic activity and income earned within the borders of the
state, and it is vital to the continued strong role of the
states in the federal system. State taxing authority should
be preempted by the federal government only where there is a
compelling policy rationale. There is no such rationale
present here.
The Senate is faced with an opportunity to demonstrate good
faith to the principles contained in The Unfunded Mandates
Act of 1995. If Congress feels that the impact of federal
workers on installations crossing the borders of two states--
one of which imposes an income tax and the other of which
does not--should be offset, it should provide the funding
necessary to offset the costs imposed on the states affected.
Sincerely,
Harley T. Duncan,
Executive Director.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me quote from a couple of lines from
this.
We ask the Senate to recognize that throughout the history
of income taxation, both Federal and State, workers are taxed
by the jurisdiction where the work is performed.
Another part of the letter says:
The U.S. Constitution imposes substantive constraints on
the manner in which States may structure their tax systems.
These restraints ensure that the tax imposed meets
fundamental tests of fairness in dealing with all citizens.
The letter says:
Finally, and most importantly, if change is necessary, it
is within the power of the States involved to do so.
And:
The ability to define their tax systems within the bounds
of the Constitution is one of the core elements of
sovereignty preserved to the States under the Constitution.
There is no rationale of precedent here under this situation.
Mr. President, Oregon has just worked out the problem between
Washington and the State of Oregon, as it should be done. Yet, my
friend from Tennessee included Oregon and Washington in his statement.
If this language is agreed to, then Tupelo, MS, had better look out
because the same thing that is happening in Kentucky will happen to
Mississippi, because the same situation occurs near Tupelo from
Tennessee, and then there is a park system at the border there. So they
would have to, in good conscience, go after two additional States.
It was my understanding that the Senator from Tennessee, Senator
Thompson, was considered offering a similar amendment to this bill.
Senators from at least 24 States should be concerned about the
precedent this language would set. Any State which borders another
State with no state income tax structure should be concerned about the
precedent set by this language. I ask unanimous consent that a list of
the 24 States that could be adversely affected by the proposed language
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Disturbing Precedent Set by the Thompson Amendment--Potential
Future Impact on States Bordering Other States With No Broad Based
Income Tax
Senators from these 24 States should be concerned about the
precedent set:
Alabama
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisana
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, in fact, I have a partial list of over 240
federal facilities that are on or near the borders of two or more
States. The precedent created by this language could affect these and
other federal facilities all over the country.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 240 Federal
facilities located on or near State borders be printed in the Record at
this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
240 Federal Facilities Potentially Affected by the Precedent (Located
on or Near State Borders)
arizona (7)
Hoover Dam.
Davis Dam.
Glen Canyon Dam.
Parker Dam.
Imperial Dam.
Several National Forests.
Military Installations near Yuma.
arkansas (9)
Federal prison in Forrest City.
Corps of Engineers projects at Beaver Lake.
Corps of Engineers projects at Bull Shoals Lake.
Corps of Engineers projects at Norfolk Lake.
Corps of Engineers projects at the Arkansas River.
Fort Chaffee Army base.
Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge.
White River National Refuge.
VA Hospital in Fayetteville.
california (50)
Military Facilities--Fort Irwin, Naval Weapons Center,
Sierra Army Depot.
National Forests--Eldorado, Inyo, Klamath, Modoc, Plumas,
Rogue River, Shasta-Trinity, Sierra, Siskiyou, Six Rivers,
Stanislaus, Tahoe, Toiyabe.
National Parks and Monuments--Clear Lake National Wildlife
Refuge, Death Valley National Park, Joshua Tree National
Park, Kings Canyon National Park, Lava Beds National
Monuments, Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, Modoc
National Wildlife Refuge, Mojave National Preserve, Mt Shasta
Recreation Center, Redwood National Park, Tule Lake National
Wildlife Refuge, Yosemite National Park.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation--Boca Dam, Imperial Diversion,
Laguana Diversion, Lake Tahoe Dam, Prosser Creek Dam, Senator
Wash, Sly Park, Stampede Dan, Colorado Dinosaur National
Monument.
Routt National Forest.
Arapaho National Forest.
Roosevelt National Forest.
Rocky Mountain National Park.
Pawnee National Grassland.
Comanche National Grassland.
Great Sand Dunes National Monument.
Rio Grande National Forest.
San Juan National Forest.
Mesa Verde National Park.
Uncompahgre National Forest.
Colorado National Monument.
Grand Mesa National Forest.
connecticut (2)
U.S. Naval Submarine Base, Groton.
U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London.
Georgia
Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base.
maine
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
massachusetts
Hanscom Air Force Base.
mississippi (8)
Holly Springs National Forest.
NASA Test Site, Bay St Louis.
Vicksburg National Military Park.
U.S. Corps of Engineers District Office, Vicksburg.
Natchez Trace Parkway.
Meridian Naval Air Station.
Columbus Air Force Base.
TVA, Tupelo.
missouri (6)
Federal Locks and Dams:
No. 20 near Canton.
No. 21 near West Quincy.
No. 22 near Saverton.
No. 24 near Clarksville.
No. 25 near West Alton.
No. 27 near St Louis.
montana (10)
Kootenai National Forest.
Lolo National Forest.
Bitteroot National Forest.
Beaverhead National Forest.
Custer National Forest.
Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area.
Yellowstone National Park.
Glacier National Park.
Crow Reservation.
Blackfeet Reservation.
nebraska
Gavins Point Dam.
new jersey (20)
McGuire Air Force Base.
[[Page S7115]]
Fort Dix Army Installation.
U.S. Naval Air Station, Lakehurst.
Pomona Naval Training Airport.
U.S. Naval Recreation Target Area, Ocean City.
Ft. Monmouth, Monmouth.
Ft. Hancock, Sandy Hook.
U.S. Coast Guard Bases (Cape May, Fort Dix, Highland, Pt.
Pleasant, Ocean City).
Sandy Hook Gateway National Recreation Area.
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
Morristown National Historic Park.
Killcohock National Wildlife Refuge.
Red Bank National Battlefield Park.
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge.
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge.
new mexico (6)
White Sands Missile Range.
Cannon Air Force Base.
Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
Kiowa National Grassland.
Carson National Forest.
Santa Fe National Forest.
new york
Ellis Island.
north carolina
Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Cherokee Indian Reservation.
Pisgah National Forest.
Blue Ridge Parkway.
Uwharrie National Forest.
Fort Bragg Military Reservation.
Pope Air Force Base.
Camp Butner Federal Prison.
Sunny Point Army Terminal.
U.S. Coast Guard Air Station, Elizabeth City.
Veterans Hospital--Swannanoa.
Veterans Hospital--Oteen.
Veterans Hospital--Durham.
oregon (20)
Bonnieville Power Administration.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division.
FAA Facilities.
Portland Air Force Base.
Kingsley Air Force Base in Klamath Falls.
U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port.
Fremont National Forest.
Winema National Forest.
Rogue River National Forest.
Siskiyou National Forest.
Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge.
Hart Mt. National Wildlife Refuge.
Wallawa-Whitman National Forest.
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.
Umatilla Army Depot.
Mt. Hood National Forest.
Umatilla National Forest.
Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge.
McCay Creek National Wildlife Refuge.
Warm Springs Indian Reservation.
pennsylvania
Philadelphia Naval Yard.
south carolina
Savannah River Site.
south dakota (3)
Black Hills National Forest.
Mt. Rushmore.
Lake Wahee.
tennessee (3)
Fort Campbell.
Millington Naval Base.
Arnold Engineering Research Facility.
Utah (37)
Flamming Gorge National Recreation Area.
Manti La-Sal National Forest.
Canyonlands National Park.
Arches National Park.
Ashley National Forest.
Dinosaur National Monument.
Brown's Park National Waterfowl Management Area.
Bryce Canyon National Park.
Caribou National Forest.
Cottonwood Canyon, BLM.
Dart Canyon Primitive Area.
Dart Canyon Wilderness Area.
Desert Range Experimental Station.
Deseret Test Center, USAF.
Dixie National Forest.
Dugway Proving Grounds.
Escalante Starcase National Monument.
Glen Canyon Dam.
Glen Canyon National Park.
Goden Spike National Historic Site.
Governor Arch, BLM.
Grand Gulch Primitive Area.
High Uintas Wilderness Area.
Hill Air Force Range.
Hovenweep National Monument.
Processing Center, Ogden.
Jones Hole Federal Hatchery.
Joshua Tree Forest, BLM.
Mount Naomi Wilderness Area.
Mt. Honeyville Wilderness Area.
Paria Canyon Cliffs Wilderness Area.
Piute Wilderness Area.
Rainbow Bridge National Monument.
Sawtooth National Forest.
Wasatch National Forest.
Wendover Range, USAF.
Zion National Park.
Vermont (2)
Green Mountain National Forest.
Border Patrol Station, Highgate.
Washington (37)
Federal Dams on the Columbia River.
Federal Dams on the Snake River.
Fairchild Air Force Base.
Mt. Spokane Air Force Facility.
U.S. DOT/U.S. Coast Guard Station IIwaco and Westport.
Veterans Offices/Hospitals--Vancouver and Walla Walla.
U.S. Department of Energy--Hanford Site.
Indian Reservations--Spokane, Kalispel, Colville, Yakima,
Shoalwater.
National Forests--Gifford Pinshot, Umatilla, Colville,
Kaniksu, Pend Oreille, Okanogan.
National Historic Sites--Whitman Mission, Ft. Vancouver.
Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic Monument.
USGS Cascade Volcano Observatory.
National Wildlife Refuges--Julia Butler Hanson, Wilapa,
Ridgefield, Conboy Lake, Umatilla, Toppenish, Turnbull,
Little Pend Oreille.
Bonnieville Power Administration--Vancouver facility.
Bureau of Reclamation Offices and Sites--Franklin County.
FAA Offices--Pasco, Walla Walla, Spokane.
other general categories
1. National Forests which straddle State borders.
2. Indian Reservations--What about state workers at Indian
casinos located on tribal lands?
3. National Refuges which straddle State borders.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the House tax language and proposed Thompson
amendment impose unfunded mandates on the States. Think about this now.
Back in 1995 we passed a law on unfunded mandates. This amendment, if
it was offered here--but it is in the House and will be in conference--
violates, if not the law, the spirit of the law on unfunded mandates.
The House language and the Thompson amendment that was not offered
also raise significant constitutional concerns.
I ask unanimous consent that an opinion from the Office of the
Attorney General from the Commonwealth of Kentucky suggesting the
Thompson amendment may be unconstitutional be printed in the Record at
this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Commonwealth of Kentucky,
Office of the Attorney General,
Frankfort, KY, June 23, 1998.
To: Scott White.
From: Jason Moseley.
Re: Income tax on out-of-state residents.
This is in response to your request for research and a
constitutional argument in opposition to HR 1953--Limitation
on State authority to tax compensation paid to individuals
performing services at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. (See
attached) Below is the proposed constitutional to this
legislation.
In short, Congress receded jurisdiction to the state to
assess a state income tax and, through this proposed
legislation, intends to limit that state power. The most
plausible power that would be used for Congressional
authority to make such an amendment is the Commerce Clause.
The constitutional challenge to such authority is that this
amendment exceeds Congressional power under the Commerce
Clause.
argument
At issue is the constitutionality of proposed legislation
that would allow Congress to determine where individuals pay
their state income tax. Of the enumerated powers given to
Congress, the Commerce Clause appears to be the only possible
source of authority for such legislation. As a consequence,
an argument can be made that this legislation would have no
effect on interstate commerce and would have a detrimental
effect on the Kentucky communities in and around Fort
Campbell. Therefore, the legislation would exceed
Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, making the
legislation unconstitutional.
On several occasions, courts have held that states can
assess an income tax to nonresidents who earn their income in
that state, (Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37 (1919); Travis v.
Yale & Towne MFG. Co., 252 U.S. 60 (1919); City of Cincinnati
v. Faig, 145 N.E.2d 563 (1957); Ratliff v. Lexington-Fayette
Urban County Government, 540 S.W.2d 8 (Ky. 1976), but this
power to tax was given to the states by Congress under the
Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 104-110. Section 106 of this act
states:
``No person shall be relieved from his liability for any
incomes tax levied by any state, or by any duly
constitutional taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction
to levy such a tax, by reason of his residing within a
Federal area or receiving income from transactions occurring
or services performed in such area; and such State or taxing
authority shall have full jurisdiction and power to levy and
collect such tax in any Federal area within such State to the
same extent and with the same effect as though such area was
not a Federal area.''
4 U.S.C. Sec. 106(a). Congress gave the stats this power to
tax income and Congress, through an amendment, can reduce
that power within the confines of the Commerce Clause.
There is no case law pertaining to Congress' power to
restrict a state's ability to assess an income tax on
nonresidents but there are recent Supreme Court decisions
where the Court has established limitations
[[Page S7116]]
on the Commerce Clause. United States v. Lopez, U.S. , 115
S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), New York v. United
States, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992).
In Lopez, the Supreme Court held that the Gun-Free School
Act, which made it a federal offense to knowingly possess a
firearm at a place the person knows or has reason to believe
is a school zone, exceeded Congressional power under the
Commerce Clause. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. at 1625. It was in Lopez,
that the court states the most current test for limitations
on the Commerce Clause. Congressional power is limited to
three areas. Id. at 1629. ``First, Congress may regulate the
use of the channels of interstate commerce.'' Id. This was
interpreted as meaning that Congress has the authority ``to
keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral
and injurious uses.'' Id. ``Second, Congress is empowered to
regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate
commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even
though the threat may come only from intrastate activities.''
Id. This area has been found to apply to vehicles and
aircraft used in interstate commerce and the theft of
interstate shipments. Id. ``Finally, Congress' commerce
authority includes power to regulate those activities having
a substantial relation to interstate commerce.'' Id. at 1629-
1630.
The first two areas of power are not applicable to the
proposed legislation. The proposed legislation is not an
attempt to regulate the use of the channels of interstate
commerce. The legislation is also not an attempt to protect
an instrumentality of interstate commerce. This is an attempt
to alter a state's taxing powers in assessing an income
tax to employees that may reside in other states. The only
area of power that may justify such legislation is the
third area which gives Congress authority to regulate
those activities that have a substantial relation to
interstate commerce.
From the language of the Buck Act, it is evident that
Congress recognized that the power to assess an income tax is
a function of the state and, more specifically, the state
where the income is earned. Assessing an income tax
predominately affects the community where the person is
employed. There is little to no effect on interstate
commerce. Whatever effect there might be is not substantial.
The effect of an income tax on the community level is great
and reaches many levels. When a person works in a community,
there are certain benefits conferred to that employee by the
community. These benefits are ``substantial and realistic.''
Ratliff v. Lexington-Fayett Urban County Government, 540 S.W.
2d 8,9 (Ky. 1976). ``The employees in going to and from work
receive police protection and use roadways built or
maintained by the . . . county government. The . . . county
government furnishes employees . . . with public facilities.
Beautiful landscapes and other esthetic benefits are
provided.'' Id. Residents of the community in which they are
employed have their income taxed so that the benefits
mentioned above can be provided. If a nonresident were to be
exempted from contributing back to the community which
conferred these benefits, the community would be forced to
reduce the amount of money used to fund such programs,
resulting in a smaller and less effective police force, less
funding for road construction and maintenance, and fewer
public facilities with less maintenance. The only other
option would be to increase the income tax on those who work
and reside in the community so that the level of service
could be continued. The community would either have to lessen
their own standard of living or increase the tax on their own
residents so that nonresidents employed in the community
could receive those benefits for free.
A state income tax has a substantial relation to activities
within the state. There is little if any effect on interstate
commerce. When Tennessee a resident comes to work at Fort
Campbell, they work, receive a pay check, are assessed an
income tax, and return to Tennessee. One might argue that for
states such as Tennessee, which has no income tax but imposes
a higher sales tax, assessing an income tax on Tennessee
residents that work in Kentucky has a substantial effect on
the state of Tennessee. This is not the case. If it were, the
converse would be true as well. Kentucky residents who
purchased items in Tennessee should be exempted from
Tennessee sales tax because they pay an income tax in
Kentucky.
The nature of an income tax is payment given for a benefit
conferred. It effects both the community that provides the
individual with a job and the individual worker who pays back
into the community that has provided the job. The effect of
an income tax does not cross state lines just as the effect
of a sales tax does not cross state lines. It does not have a
substantial relation to interstate commerce. To decide
otherwise, and approve this amendment, would effectively make
all income and sales tax the province of the Federal
government. This would not amend 4 U.S.C. Sec. 106 but would
nullify it.
conclusion
Anticipating what Congressional power will be used as
authority for this legislation consequently makes this
research limited in its scope. The commerce clause appears to
be the only enumerated power that would provide authority for
such legislation. The argument has been made by Rep. Linda
Smith of Washington state that an income tax on non-resident
workers is taxation without representation. The situation
addressed by Rep. Smith involved workers on a dam straddling
the Washington/Oregon state line. Workers would cross the
state line several times a day, making it difficult to keep
record of how long an employee was working in each state.
This situation is distinguishable from that of Fort Campbell
workers. In examining the circumstances at Fort Campbell, it
is a case of individuals working in solely Kentucky,
benefitting from the services provided by Kentucky
communities. Because of this distinction, the `taxation with
representation' argument falls to the sales tax analogy
mentioned above. If assessing an income tax to residents
where they earn their income is taxation without
representation, assessing a sales tax to consumers where they
purchase their goods would also be taxation without
representation.
What has been proposed is not an amendment to the Buck Act
but an attempt, through piece-meal legislation, to do away
with it. Such an amendment is beyond the Commerce Clause
powers of Congress and would be unconstitutional.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, why are we singling out this Federal
facility? We really do not know the full scope of this issue and this
precedent we are creating by preempting State law.
The employees of Fort Campbell wherever they reside--benefit from
services provided by the States of Kentucky and Tennessee.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the
Kentucky Revenue Cabinet detailing the services provided to all Fort
Campbell employees, including those who reside in Tennessee, be printed
in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Revenue Cabinet,
Office of General Counsel,
Frankfort, KY, July 11, 1997.
Re H.R. 1953--Fort Campbell.
Mr. Harley Duncan,
Federation of Tax Administrators, Washington, DC.
Dear Harley: The Revenue Cabinet has gathered some
information on the Fort Campbell issue of whether employees
who live in Tennessee and work on the Kentucky side of the
Fort Campbell installation receive any benefits from the
state of Kentucky.
The question of what services Kentucky provides is quite
broad. I will attempt to itemize below what we have
investigated and the results.
Roads--Fort Campbell is accessible from both the Kentucky
side and the Tennessee side. Most workers enter the base at
the gate nearest their work station. This means, for example,
that most hospital workers enter on the Tennessee side (the
hospital is in Tennessee), and most school workers enter on
the Kentucky side using Kentucky maintained roads (the school
is in Kentucky).
Water and Sewer Service--Self contained on the base.
Electric Service--Most is supplied directly to the base by
the Tennessee Valley Authority. One housing area, however, is
supplied by the Pennyrile Electric Cooperative, a Kentucky
based electric company.
Cooperative Fire Protection--Local communities in both
Kentucky and Tennessee have agreements with Fort Campbell to
assist in the event of a major fire or other emergency.
Schools--The school system on the Fort Campbell base is
fully self-contained and federally funded. It is limited to
the children of active duty military personnel stationed at
the military base.
Police Protection--All police protection is self-contained.
Responsibility for Fort Campbell and all federal military
bases rests with the federal/military police.
Unemployment Benefits--Federal civilian workers who become
unemployed can apply for benefits from the state where they
work or the state where they live. If a Tennessee resident
working in Kentucky becomes unemployed and applies in
Tennessee, a transfer is made from the Kentucky fund to the
Tennessee fund to pay that worker's unemployment claim. The
result is that wherever the claim is filed, Kentucky funds
pay the claim.
I hope this information is helpful to you in your efforts
concerning HR 1953. It is our belief that the civilian
employees who work on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell
definitely receive some benefits from the state of Kentucky.
The Kentucky Revenue Cabinet greatly appreciates the work
FTA is doing on HR 1953. Harley, we can't thank you and your
staff enough. If I can be of further assistance, please let
me know.
Sincerely,
Alex W. Rose,
Commissioner, Department of Law,
Kentucky Revenue Cabinet.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, tax legislation, and especially tax
legislation that preempts State law, should not be snuck into a defense
bill in this manner. I intended to offer an amendment which dealt with
this issue and would help educate Senators on the potential broad scope
of the precedent being set by the House language. However, in the
interest of finishing this bill, I will withhold offering an amendment
at this time.
[[Page S7117]]
However, I wish to alert the managers to my strong objection to such
language being included in this bill, or any other unrelated bill. I
strongly object to inclusion of such language in the conference report.
I urge the managers to protect my interests.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Kentucky has
made a strong case. I agree with him. Complex tax proposals of this
type which preempt State tax laws do not belong in a defense bill. I
will make sure that his concerns are considered by the conference
committee when we address the differences between the House and the
Senate versions of this bill.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan and hope
that the majority manager of the bill will give the same attention that
I have asked for here.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe we are ready to conclude a
matter with the Senator from North Carolina and--I guess we still need
to do one more check. Senator Burns is next in line.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Amendment No. 2728
(Purpose: To improve the quality of life for members of the Armed
Forces by authorizing additional military construction and military
family housing projects)
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2728, for myself,
the ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations
Subcommittee, Senator Murray, along with Senators Stevens, Byrd,
Inouye, and Lott to be added as original cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), for himself, Mr.
Lott, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Inouye,
proposes an amendment numbered 2728.
Mr. BURNS. 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 324, below line 14, add the following:
SEC. 2705. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS.
(a) Additional Army Construction Projects Inside the United
States.--In addition to the projects authorized by section
2101(a), and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in section 2104(a)(1), as
increased by subsection (d), the Secretary of the Army may
also acquire real property and carry out military
construction projects for the installations and locations
inside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in
the following table:
Army: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
State location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas............................ Fort Riley.......... $16,500,000
Kentucky.......................... Fort Campbell....... $15,500,000
Maryland.......................... Fort Detrick........ $7,100,000
New York.......................... Fort Drum........... $7,000,000
Texas............................. Fort Sam Houston.... $5,500,000
Virginia.......................... Fort Eustis......... $4,650,000
Fort Meyer.......... $6,200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Additional Army Construction Project Outside the United
States.--In addition to the projects authorized by section
2101(b), and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in section 2104(a)(2), as
increased by subsection (d), the Secretary of the Army may
also acquire real property and carry out the military
construction project for the location outside the United
States, and in the amount, set forth in the following table:
Army: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Country location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Korea............................. Camp Casey.......... $8,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Improvement of Army Family Housing at White Sands
Missile Range, New Mexico.--In addition to the projects
authorized by section 2103, and using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(5)(A), as increased by subsection (d), the Secretary
of the Army may also improve existing military family housing
units (36 units) at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, in
an amount not to exceed $3,650,000.
(d) Additional Authorizations of Appropriations, Army
Military Construction.--(1) The total amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 2104(a) is hereby increased by
$74,100,000.
(2) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section
2104(a)(1) is hereby increased by $62,450,000.
(3) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section
2104(a)(2) is hereby increased by $8,000,000.
(4) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section
2104(a)(5)(A) is hereby increased by $3,650,000.
(e) Additional Navy Construction Projects Inside the United
States.--In addition to the projects authorized by section
2201(a), and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in section 2204(a)(1), as
increased by subsection (g), the Secretary of the Navy may
also acquire real property and carry out military
construction projects for the installations and locations
inside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in
the following table:
Navy: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
State location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida........................... Naval Station, $3,400,000
Mayport.
Maine............................. Naval Air Station, $15,220,000
Brunswick.
Pennsylvania...................... Naval Inventory $1,600,000
Control Point,
Mechanisburg.
Naval Inventory $1,550,000
Control Point,
Philadelphia.
South Carolina.................... Marine Corps Recruit $8,030,000
Depot, Parris
Island.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Improvement of Navy Family Housing at Whidbey Island
Naval Air Station, Washington.--In addition to the projects
authorized by section 2203, and using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2204(a)(5)(A), as increased by subsection (g), the Secretary
of the Navy may also improve existing military family housing
units (80 units) at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station,
Washington, in an amount not to exceed $5,800,000.
(g) Additional Authorizations of Appropriations, Navy
Military Construction.--(1) The total amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 2204(a) is hereby increased by
$35,600,000.
(2) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section
2204(a)(1) is hereby increased by $29,800,000.
(3) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section
2204(a)(5)(A) is hereby increased by $5,800,000.
(h) Additional Air Force Construction Projects Inside the
United States.--In addition to the projects authorized by
section 2301(a), and using amounts appropriated pursuant to
the authorization of appropriations in section 2304(a)(1), as
increased by subsection (k), the Secretary of the Air Force
may also acquire real property and carry out military
construction projects for the installations and locations
inside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in
the following table:
Air Force: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
State location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado.......................... Falcon Air Force $5,800,000
Station.
Georgia........................... Robins Air Force $6,000,000
Base.
Louisiana......................... Barksdale Air Force $9,300,000
Base.
North Dakota...................... Grand Forks Air $8,800,000
Force Base.
Ohio.............................. Wright-Patterson Air $4,600,000
Force Base.
Texas............................. Goodfellow Air Force $7,300,000
Base.
Wyoming........................... F.E. Warren Air $3,850,000
Force Base.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Construction and Acquisition of Air Force Family
Housing.--In addition to the projects authorized by section
2302(a), and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in section 2304(a)(5)(A), as
increased by subsection (k), the Secretary of the Air Force
may also construct or acquire family housing units (including
land acquisition) at the installation, for the purpose, and
in the amount set forth in the following table:
Air Force: Family Housing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
State location Purpose Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana...................... Malmstrom Air 62 $12,300,000
Force Base. Units.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(j) Improvement of Air Force Family Housing.--In addition
to the projects authorized by section 2303, and using amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 2304(a)(5)(A), as increased by subsection (k), the
Secretary of the Air Force may also improve existing military
family housing units as follows:
(1) Travis Air Force Base, California, 105 units, in an
amount not to exceed $10,500,000.
(2) Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, 68 units, in an amount
not to exceed $5,220,000.
(3) McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, 50 units, in an
amount not to exceed $5,800,000.
[[Page S7118]]
(4) Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina, 95
units, in an amount not to exceed $10,830,000.
(k) Additional Authorizations of Appropriations, Air Force
Military Construction.--(1) The total amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 2304(a) is hereby increased by
$90,300,000.
(2) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section
2304(a)(1) is hereby increased by $45,650,000.
(3) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section
2304(a)(5)(A) is hereby increased by $44,650,000.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this calls for an additional 27 quality-of-
life military construction projects throughout the Department of
Defense. These projects are located in 22 States, and some overseas.
And it is focused entirely on quality of life.
If we have learned anything from our visitations to military
installations, it is that we have not focused on such as health care
centers, child care centers, recreation, and also housing for our
enlisted, and barracks for our enlisted. It encompasses projects such
as child care, dining facilities, modernization, replacement of
barracks, and family housing.
We did not focus on any particular State, geographic region or
committee membership, but rather we tried to find worthy and
meritorious projects that the services wanted and requested but we
could not afford in the near term. The majority of these projects were
not asked for by Members of the Senate. Rather, they are projects
requested by the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps.
Every single one of these projects is contained in the Department of
Defense Future Year Defense Plan or FYDP. Further, over half are in the
early years of that plan.
Mr. President, we offer this amendment, and I yield the floor to my
colleague from Washington, Senator Murray.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
I rise to join with Senator Burns in fully endorsing this amendment
to the Armed Services bill. Chairman Stevens, Senator Byrd, Senator
Inouye, Senator Burns and myself have cosponsored this amendment with
the sole intention of providing essential quality of life programs and
initiatives for our men and women in uniform.
Increasingly over the last few years, military construction has been
given the shorter end of the stick in terms of adequate funding.
Congress has always stood by our services, and managed to increase
funding where we thought an increase was necessary.
Again, this year we face a similar situation, with the budget request
at $1.4 billion less than what we appropriated last year. The Armed
Services Committee significantly bridged this gap by authorizing an
additional $500 million in much-needed military construction projects.
But we would like to take it a step further and add $200 million for
military construction quality of life projects. This would make the
military construction budget $8.48 billion, still $700 million less
than what was authorized and appropriated last year, but at least $700
million above the less than adequate budget request.
The projects we have included in this $200 million request are all
bonafide quality of life initiatives. We are hearing more and more
often how our services are struggling with lower than average retention
rates. While this shortfall is being addressed through other means, it
is also important to address it through military construction. Some of
the biggest complaints from our service men and women are regarding
things like child care centers. Inadequate housing conditions, old
dining facilities, and lack of physical fitness centers. We tried to
meet these very real needs in our amendment, providing funds for 27
projects in 22 States. All of these projects are in DOD's future year
defense plan, and all of these fall under the criteria of quality of
life. Furthermore, the selection of the projects was made in a very
bipartisan way. We did not focus on a certain political party or a
certain geographical region. Instead, we went to the services and asked
them what they needed but couldn't afford.
Probably at the front of many of my colleagues' minds is the fiasco
we had last year with the line-item veto of 37 of our military
construction projects and an unfounded concern that these projects may
be mere pork. Let me assure you that all of these projects were
carefully selected with the threat of the line-item veto in mind. Every
single one of these projects has been included in DOD's future year
defense plan, and all of these are quality of life projects, meeting
the very criteria that the President submitted last year in regards to
the line-item veto. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has just determined
that we won't have to fight that fight again, but it should be
reassuring to all here of the thoughtfulness and seriousness in which
we chose all of the projects on this list.
Mr. President, I have to say that it concerns me when I hear
criticism of the military construction bill as being ``Christmas in
July,'' delivering ``pork'' projects to Members. Nothing could be
further from the truth, especially for the kinds of projects we're
talking about today. First of all, as I just mentioned, these projects
are based on the needs of the services, not the requests of Members.
Secondly, and most importantly, at the very least, we owe our men and
women in uniform a quality of life that is comparable to their civilian
counterparts. They should not be compelled to live in inadequate
facilities, to travel off-base for child care, to pay for membership in
a physical fitness center because their installation doesn't have one.
These are small dollar items that will mean so much to so many people.
A gesture like this can only but help in quality of life, help in
overall satisfaction with the services, help in retention, and
therefore help our services meet their force needs and requirements for
the 21st century.
This is a fair, bipartisan, and legitimate means of providing our
service men and women with necessary quality of life programs. We have
been fortunate to work with our colleagues on the Armed Services
Committee in ensuring this is an acceptable amendment and an acceptable
allocation of resources. I hope and expect this amendment can be fully
embraced by the Armed Services Committee, and I encourage my colleagues
to support its inclusion.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I stand before this body to address the
considerable number of low-priority, unrequested military construction
projects that have been added to the FY 1999 Military Construction
Appropriations Bill.
Since the end of the ``Cold War,'' the budget that provides for the
defense of this nation has been cut in half as a percentage of the
gross domestic product and by over $120 billion in real terms. As a
result of these drastic cuts, our military force structure has shrunk
by more than 30 percent; Operations and Maintenance accounts have been
reduced by 40 percent; procurement has declined by more than 50
percent, and paychecks for our service members now lag an embarrassing
13 percent behind their civilian counterparts.
In stark contrast, our military has seen a 400 percent increase in
operational commitments over the same period. The tempo of operations
has never been so high in a time of peace. And yet, America's military
personnel have performed admirably, bridging the gap between decreased
funding and increased commitments with sheer dedication to duty and
professionalism. Unfortunately, the damage caused by the
Administration's continual practice of asking the military to ``do more
with less,'' is becoming very evident.
Retention rates throughout the military are down. Mid-grade officers
and senior non-commissioned officers--groups traditionally thought of
as career oriented personnel--are exiting the service in increasing
numbers. All of the services are facing pilot shortages, no doubt
precipitated by reductions in flight hours, declining aircraft
availability, and increased time away from home.
Recruitment goals are not being met. Except for the Marine Corps, all
of the services are falling short of their recruiting to 7,000 recruits
short by the end of the year. This follows the Navy's 12,000 recruit
shortfall of last year. When recruiters offer potential recruits the
opportunity to be over-worked, underpaid, spartanly supported and often
away from home, many of America's best and brightest are saying ``no
thank you.''
[[Page S7119]]
Readiness is in decline. Secretary Cohen, the service chiefs,
regional commanders in chief, and various other military leaders have
acknowledged that there are significant indicators of readiness
problems. There are also significant shortages of critical spare parts.
These shortages are forcing maintenance personnel to routinely use
cannibalized parts--parts taken off of other supposedly operational
systems--to keep equipment operating.
All of these problems--declining readiness, retention and recruitment
shortfalls, inoperative equipment--are the result of chronic under-
funding of our nation's security interests.
The Congress, most certainly, has not turned a blind eye to the needs
of the services. In the previous three years, Congress has added more
than $20 billion to the defense budget requests submitted by the
Clinton Administration. So why do we still have these serious and
growing deficiencies in readiness, pay, and modernization? Because the
practice of Congress has tragically been to mis-use billions of these
scarce defense dollars to add unrequested programs and building
projects to the defense budget.
This year's Military Construction Appropriations Bill was crafted
under the spending caps of the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. The
agreement established firm limits to the National Defense budget. With
these budget constraints in place, on would think that members would
find it difficult to even consider adding projects of questionable
merit, since the offsets required to pay for such requests would siphon
precious dollars from areas of greater need within the defense budget.
The temptation for members to pander to their parochial interests, I am
sad to report, has proven too great to resist.
One only needs to look at the 114 unrequested military construction
projects, at a cost of nearly $800 million in the FY 1999 Military
Construction Appropriations bill, to realize the pork habit has become
an addiction. If this bill is accepted as written, we will have added
$9 billion in unrequested military construction projects since 1990.
Nine billion dollars!
The question is not whether these unrequested military construction
projects can be defended as meeting the Senate's review criteria or as
actions within the prerogatives of Congress. The question is whether we
are directing scarce defense resources where they will do the greatest
good for our country and for the men and women of our All Volunteer
Force. I believe we are not.
This bill funds ten unrequested National Guard armories and Reserve
centers at a cost of $65 million. Twelve million dollars is
appropriated to replace existing dining facilities at two joint
civilian/military airports--one, at Dannelly Field, Alabama and the
other, at Ft. Wayne, Indiana. Hickman Air Force Base will get a new
$5.1 million dollar civil engineering facility to replace the existing
one.
The folks at Fort Wainwright, Alaska will doubtless see readiness
levels soar as they christen their new $3 million vehicle wash
facility. Fort Bragg, South Carolina gets $8.3 million to erect mission
critical fencing.
At a time when many installations are closing libraries because of
lack of use, this bill appropriates $8.5 million dollars to build a
very impressive, yet unnecessary library at Shaw Air Force Base.
Training at the National Training Center has suffered due to
personnel and funding cuts, and the number of ``Red Flag'' air combat
exercises has also been reduced due to funding cuts. Yet this bill
appropriates nearly $14 million for a ``Regional Training Institute''
at Camp Dawson, West Virginia--a small National Guard weekend drill
facility.
Many of the additions to this bill were made in the name of service
member quality of life. It is interesting to note that not a single one
of the Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded priority, quality of life
projects is in this bill. The Commandant of the Marine Corps has
priority quality of life project on the list of adds. None of the Air
Force's top six unfunded quality of life projects made this bill. Only
one of the top 15 did.
In contrast, 95 percent of the construction projects in the amendment
are to be built in the States or districts of appropriations committee
members.
In closing, let me say that I am sure there are many good projects on
this list. Many of these projects will serve to improve the quality of
life of our military personnel, and they will provide facilities and
improvements that will enhance mission readiness. But the real reason
these projects are funded in this bill is that they provide economic
benefit to certain states.
With today's budget realities, it is absolutely critical that every
defense dollar be spent where it will do the most good. We, the
Congress, must stop the practice carving out our little portion of the
Defense Budget to keep the folks at home happy. We must, instead, do
what is best for the services as a whole. We owe nothing less to our
men and women in uniform.
I ask unanimous consent a list of military construction
appropriations additions be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
FY 1999 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS BILL ADDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Base Facility Cost in thousands
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... Fort Rucker..................... Simulation center........ $10,000
Alabama......................... Dannelly Field.................. Replace medical training 6,000
and dining facility.
Alaska.......................... Fort Wainwright................. Barracks Renewal......... 19,500
Alaska.......................... Fort Richardson................. Improve Family Housing 7,400
(40 units).
Alaska.......................... Fort Wainwright................. Vehicle Wash Facility.... 3,100
Alaska.......................... Eielson AFB..................... Weapons and release 6,200
system shelter.
Alaska.......................... Kulis ANG Base.................. Vehicle maintenance and 10,400
fire station.
Arkansas........................ Little Rock AFB................. Upgrade sewage plant..... 1,500
California...................... Travis AFB...................... Improve family housing... 10,500
California...................... Travis AFB...................... New control tower........ 4,250
Colorado........................ Falcon AFS...................... Child development center. 5,800
Connecticut..................... Orange Ang Station.............. Air control squadron 11,000
complex.
Connecticut..................... Naval Sub Base, New London...... Waterfront 12,510
recapitalization.
Delaware........................ Dagsboro........................ Readiness center......... 3,609
Delaware........................ Dover AFB....................... Leadership school........ 1,600
Florida......................... Key West Naval Station.......... Child development center. 3,400
Florida......................... NAVSTA Mayport.................. Fleet recreation facility 3,400
Florida......................... Pensacola....................... Armory................... 3,975
Florida......................... NAS Whiting Field............... 8 helicopter pads........ 1,400
Georgia......................... Fort Stewart.................... Warehouse................ 17,000
Georgia......................... Robins AFB...................... JSTARS dining facility... 6,000
Georgia......................... Moody AFB....................... Improve family housing 5,200
(68 units).
Georgia......................... NAS Atlanta..................... Hangar addition.......... 4,100
Georgia......................... Sub Base King Bay............... Degaussing facility...... 2,550
Hawaii.......................... Schofield Barracks.............. Land purchase............ 23,500
Hawaii.......................... Marine Corps Base, Hawaii....... BEQ...................... 19,000
Hawaii.......................... Pearl Harbor.................... Hazardous waste 4,570
consolidation facility.
Hawaii.......................... Hickam AFB...................... Replacement civil 5,100
engineering facility.
Idaho........................... Mountain Home................... Munitions storage 4,100
facility.
Idaho........................... Mountain Home................... Munitions storage igloo.. 1,500
Idaho........................... Boise Air Terminal.............. Base supply facility 3,000
addition.
Indiana......................... Hulman Regional Airport......... Corrosion control 6,000
facility.
Indiana......................... Fort Wayne International Airport New dining hall and 6,000
medical training
facility.
Iowa............................ Des Moines...................... Police operations 4,000
building.
Kansas.......................... Fort Riley...................... Barracks complex renewal. 16,400
Kansas.......................... McConnel AFB.................... Addition to deployment 2,900
center.
Kansas.......................... Forbes Field.................... Hangar upgrade........... 9,800
Kentucky........................ Fort Campbell................... Improve family housing 10,000
(95 units).
Kentucky........................ Fort Campbell................... Barracks complex renewal. 15,500
[[Page S7120]]
Kentucky........................ Standiford Field, Louisville.... Replace composite aerial 4,100
port.
Louisiana....................... Barksdale AFB................... Physical fitness center.. 9,300
Louisiana....................... Fort Polk....................... Rail loading facility.... 8,300
Maine........................... NAS Brunswick................... BEQ...................... 15,220
Maryland........................ Fort Meade...................... Emergency services center 5,300
Maryland........................ U.S. Naval Academy.............. Demolish towers.......... 4,300
Maryland........................ Fort Detrick.................... Barracks complex renewal. 7,100
Massachusetts................... Hanscom AFB..................... Renovate management 10,000
facility.
Massachusetts................... Westover AFRB................... Control tower............ 5,000
Michigan........................ Alpena County Regional Airport.. Fire station............. 5,100
Michigan........................ Selfridge, ANG Base............. Upgrade buildings........ 9,800
Mississippi..................... Brookhaven...................... Guard training center.... 5,247
Mississippi..................... Columbus AFB.................... 52 units of family 6,800
housing.
Mississippi..................... Columbus AFB.................... BOQ...................... 5,700
Mississippi..................... Columbus AFB.................... Corrosion control 2,500
facility.
Mississippi..................... Keesler AFB..................... Replace 52 units of 6,800
family housing.
Mississippi..................... Stennis Space Center............ Operations support 5,500
facility.
Missouri........................ Rosecrans Memorial Airport...... Upgrade parking aircraft 9,600
apron.
Montana......................... Helena.......................... Reserve center........... 21,690
Montana......................... Malmstrom AFB................... Missile operations shop.. 5,300
Montana......................... Malmstrom AFB................... Replace housing (62 12,300
units).
Montana......................... Malmstrom AFB................... New dormitory............ 7,900
Nebraska........................ Lincoln Municipal Airport....... Medical training facility 3,350
Nevada.......................... Carson City..................... Readiness center......... 5,860
New Hampshire................... Concord......................... Aviation support facility 350
New Jersey...................... Fort Dix........................ Ammunitions supply point. 8,731
New Jersey...................... McGuire AFB..................... Improve family housing... 5,800
New Mexico...................... Taos............................ Readiness center......... 3,300
New Mexico...................... Cannon AFB...................... Runway repair............ 6,500
New Mexico...................... Kirtland AFB.................... Repair weapon integrity 6,800
building.
New Mexico...................... White Sand Missile Range........ Improve family housing... 3,650
New York........................ Fort Drum....................... All weather weapons 4,650
training facility.
New York........................ Fort Drum....................... Consolidated soldier and 7,000
family housing.
New York........................ Air Force Research Lab, Rome.... Intel and reconnaissance 1,152
lab.
New York........................ Niagara Falls................... Maintenance facility..... 3,900
North Carolina.................. Fort Bragg...................... Fences................... 8,300
North Carolina.................. Seymour......................... Library.................. 6,100
North Carolina.................. Johnson AFB Seymour............. Improve family housing... 10,830
North Carolina.................. Camp Lejeune.................... BEQ...................... 15,700
North Dakota.................... Minot AFB....................... Taxiway.................. 8,500
North Dakota.................... Grand Forks..................... Add to physical fitness 8,800
center.
North Dakota.................... Hector Field.................... Addition to base supply 3,650
facility.
Ohio............................ Springfield-Beckly Airport...... Civil engineering 5,000
facility.
Ohio............................ Wright-Patterson AFB............ Physical fitness facility 4,600
Oklahoma........................ Sand Springs.................... Reserve center........... 972
Oklahoma........................ Tinker AFB...................... Operations and mobility 10,800
center.
Oklahoma........................ Vance AFB....................... Physical fitness center.. 4,400
Oklahoma........................ Altus AFB....................... Control tower............ 4,000
Pennsylvania.................... NAVICP Mechanics Burg........... Child development center. 1,600
Pennsylvania.................... NAVICP Philadelphia............. Child development center. 1,500
Pennsylvania.................... US Army Research Center......... Regimental support 19,512
facility.
South Carolina.................. Charleston AFB.................. Housing improvements..... 9,110
South Carolina.................. MCRD Parris Island.............. Female recruit barracks.. 8,030
South Carolina.................. Shaw AFB........................ Library.................. 8,500
South Carolina.................. Spartanburg..................... Readiness center......... 5,200
South Dakota.................... Ellsworth AFB................... Operations facility...... 6,500
South Dakota.................... Joe Foss Field.................. Maintenance and ground 5,200
equipment facility.
Tennessee....................... Fort Campbell................... Housing improvements..... 10,700
Texas........................... Fort Bliss...................... Overpass................. 4,100
Texas........................... Dyess, AFB...................... Support equipment shop... 1,400
Texas........................... Fort Sam Houston................ Dining facility.......... 5,500
Texas........................... Goodfellow AFB.................. Student dormitory........ 7,300
Texas........................... Sheppard AFB.................... Family housing........... 12,800
Utah............................ Hill AFB........................ Addition to child 1,500
development center.
Utah............................ Hill AFB........................ Reserve asset warehouse.. 2,600
Utah............................ Fort Douglas.................... Reserve center........... 4,106
Vermont......................... Burlington...................... Supply complex........... 5,500
Virginia........................ Fort Meyer...................... Barracks renovation...... 6,200
Virginia........................ Fort Eustis..................... Physical fitness center.. 4,650
Washington...................... Fort Lawton..................... Army reserve facility.... 10,713
Washington...................... Bremerton Naval Shipyard........ Community support 4,300
facility.
Washington...................... McChord AFB..................... Medical training facility 3,400
Washington...................... Fairchild AFB................... Training support complex. 3,900
Washington...................... Whidbey Island NAS.............. Improve family housing... 5,800
Washington...................... Fairchild ARB................... Composite support complex 9,800
West Virginia................... Camp Dawson..................... Regional training 13,595
institute.
Wyoming......................... F.E. Warren AFB................. Modify dormitories....... 3,850
------------------
.............................. .............................. ....................... 797,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment
offered tonight by Senator Burns providing additional funds for
military construction projects. One of the most important aspects of
military readiness is the quality of life that the soldiers who defend
our Nation encounter on a daily basis. This amendment focusses only on
quality of life projects and funds projects of only the highest
priority--those on the Armed Services' Future Years Defense Plan.
Mr. President, two projects found in this amendment are located in
Georgia, one at Robins Air Force Base and one at Moody Air Force Base.
I know from my visits to these military installations that these
projects will contribute substantially to the quality of life for the
soldiers stationed at the respective bases. I applaud the efforts of my
colleague, Senator Burns, to increase funding in an area that needs
this assistance and his efforts to help our Nation's soldiers.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana. The Senator has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. BURNS. We have to understand that in this fiscal year we are
about $700 million under what we allocated and appropriated for
military construction a year ago. Compared to 2 years ago, this
expenditure is down $2 billion. And I think this committee has done a
good job in trying to seek out those projects that are necessary. We
have done it, and we have cut some of the fat out of this
appropriations and put the money where we really think it is needed and
did it in a way that stays within our budget and our allocation.
So we are $2 billion less in expenditures than we were 2 years ago.
So I think this committee has done a commendable job.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Arizona is to be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would the Chair kindly repeat that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, the Senator from
Arizona is to be recognized at this point to offer a second-degree
amendment.
[[Page S7121]]
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have been in consultation with the staff
of the Senator from Arizona, and I am just going to ask that we move on
to the next item on the UC at this time, preserving the rights of the
Senator from Arizona under the unanimous-consent agreement.
So I ask unanimous consent to preserve the rights accorded to the
Senator from Arizona and we move forward from that and proceed to the
next item.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
I wish to advise Senators we are moving along a little bit ahead of
schedule, which is good. I think there could well be a disposition that
the Senator from Arizona has in mind.
Amendment No. 3016
(Purpose: To name the bill in honor of Senator Strom Thurmond)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will now move to the next item under
the unanimous-consent agreement which, as I understand it, is an
amendment by the Senator from Virginia, myself, on behalf of the
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Levin; on behalf of the distinguished
majority leader, Mr. Lott; and on behalf of the distinguished
Democratic leader, Mr. Daschle. I will send the amendment to the desk
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. WARNER], for himself, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Lott, Mr. Daschle, Mr. McCain, Mr. Coats, Mr.
Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Santorum, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Glenn, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Robb, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Cleland
proposes an amendment numbered 3016.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out section 1 and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina first became a
member of the Committee on Armed Services of the United
States Senate on January 19, 1959. His continuous service on
that committee covers more than 75 percent of the period of
the existence of the committee, which was established
immediately after World War II, and more than 20 percent of
the period of the existence of military and naval affairs
committees of Congress, the original bodies of which were
formed in 1816.
(2) Senator Thurmond came to Congress and the committee as
a distinguished veteran of service, including combat service,
in the Armed Forces of the United States.
(3) Senator Thurmond was commissioned as a reserve second
lieutenant of infantry in 1924. He served with great
distinction with the First Army in the European Theater of
Operations during World War II, landing in Normandy in a
glider with the 82nd Airborne Division on D-Day. He was
transferred to the Pacific Theater of Operations at the end
of the war in Europe and was serving in the Philippines when
Japan surrendered.
(4) Having reverted to Reserve status at the end of World
War II, Senator Thurmond was promoted to brigadier general in
the United States Army Reserve in 1954. He served as
President of the Reserve Officers Association beginning that
same year and ending in 1955. Senator Thurmond was promoted
to major general in the United States Army Reserve in 1959.
He transferred to the Retired Reserve on January 1, 1965,
after 36 years of commissioned service.
(5) The distinguished character of Senator Thurmond's
military service has been recognized by awards of numerous
decorations that include the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star
medal with ``V'' device, the Belgian Cross of the Order of
the Crown, and the French Croix de Guerre.
(6) Senator Thurmond has served as Chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate since 1995 and as
the ranking minority member of the committee from 1993 to
1995. Senator Thurmond concludes his service as Chairman at
the end of the 105th Congress, but is to continue to serve
the committee as a member in successive Congresses.
(7) This Act is the fortieth annual authorization bill for
the Department of Defense for which Senator Thurmond has
taken a major responsibility as a member of the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate.
(8) Senator Thurmond, as officer and legislator, has made
matchless contributions to the national security of the
United States that, in duration and in quality, are unique.
(9) It is altogether fitting and proper that this Act, the
last annual authorization Act for the national defense that
Senator Thurmond manages in and for the United States Senate
as Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate,
be named in his honor.
(b) Short Title.--This Act shall be cited as the ``Strom
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1999''.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the course of the history of the
Senate, there comes a moment whereby we recognize the extraordinary
contributions of one of our Members. Tonight I rise on behalf of myself
and others to recognize the services of the distinguished chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, Strom Thurmond. I am pleased to introduce
this amendment which would name the Department of Defense authorization
bill presently under consideration after our chairman, Strom Thurmond
of South Carolina.
Very few, if any, persons in American history have made the
contributions, in length and quality, to the national defense that
Senator Thurmond has made. First commissioned a Reserve officer in
1924, he volunteered for active duty in 1941. He went into Normandy on
D-Day, June 6, 1944, in a glider with the 82d Airborne Division, and
fought throughout the campaigns in northern Europe. Transferred then as
a volunteer to go to the Pacific theater following the surrender of
Germany, he served then in the Philippines when Japan surrendered.
Promoted to brigadier general in the Army Reserve in 1954 and to
major general in 1959, Senator Thurmond remained on active status until
1965. He served as national president of the Reserve Officers
Association, 1954 to 1955.
Senator Thurmond first became a member of the Committee on Armed
Services in January of 1959. He served as the committee's ranking
minority member from 1993 to 1995 and as chairman from 1995 to the
present. He has announced that he will step down as chairman during the
course of the next Congress--or the completion of this Congress--and he
will, of course, remain then the ranking member of our committee.
Senator Thurmond's nearly 40 years of service on the Committee on
Armed Services covers 75 percent of the time of the existence of that
committee, which was formed by the merger of the old Committees on
Military Affairs and Naval Affairs in 1947. Perhaps more remarkably, he
covers over 20 percent of the time since the original committees were
set up, since 1816.
In view of his matchless contributions to the national defense, both
on the battlefield and in the Senate Chamber, it is altogether
appropriate that tonight the present bill, the last he will manage as
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, be named in his honor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. It is only because the hour is late and we are trying to
wrap up this bill that I only will spend a moment saying how important
it is that we adopt this amendment in paying respects to our chairman,
who has done such an extraordinary job in moving our committee along in
these last few years as chairman, and as a member for so many years
before that.
As ranking member, I had the privilege of working with Senator Strom
Thurmond, for Senator Thurmond is a chairman who approached these
issues on a bipartisan basis, as the defense budget should be
approached. He has always set forth a determination that we protect our
Nation's security first and foremost, and that the men and women in our
Armed Forces be the focus of our resolve, and the protection and
security of this Nation through them be what is first and foremost in
our minds.
So this is a small gesture that the Senator from Virginia is leading
tonight. I want to commend him for thinking of this and for taking the
leadership on this. I want to tell him it is my pleasure to join with
him and do what we do so often, act on a bipartisan basis in the Armed
Services Committee.
I congratulate Senator Thurmond. This will be the last defense
authorization bill that he will manage, but there will be many, many,
many, many more years of energetic efforts that will be forthcoming
from the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I salute one of the greatest Senators this
body has ever seen. Strom Thurmond is one
[[Page S7122]]
of the greatest men I have ever known. A fine attorney, judge, local
and State leader, war veteran, patriot, hero and long-term Senator.
Strom is a great father and family man. He is a fine human being who
always stands up for the right with all his might. He has been a fine
example to all of us who serve with him and to the public at large.
I've had the privilege of serving on the Judiciary Committee with him
over the past 22 years. He has always worked hard, fought for his
beliefs, and has set an example for all of us.
I truly love Strom Thurmond and will do my best to live up to his
great example.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to rise
today in honor of my close friend, the distinguished senior senator
from South Carolina and Chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, Strom Thurmond, on the completion of the FY 99 Defense
Authorization bill. This marks the last time that Senator Thurmond will
manage a Defense Authorization Bill in his capacity as Chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
Senator Thurmond is an exceptional man, a truly remarkable individual
who has unselfishly dedicated his entire life to the service of others.
Mr. President, earlier in the 105th Congress, on May 25, 1997, Senator
Thurmond made history in this institution when he became he longest-
serving United States Senator in our nation's history. He is a model in
perseverance and is a testament to the greatness of this body and to
this nation as a whole.
Senator Thurmond was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1954 as a
write-in candidate. He was the first person in U.S. history to ever be
elected to a major U.S. office in this manner. He has since served the
people of South Carolina continuously in this body for over 41 years
and 10 months, a record which is likely to stand the test of time and
to never be broken.
Throughout his career, Strom Thurmond has served South Carolina and
the United States in a number of important ways: he has served South
Carolina as a State Senator; a South Carolina Circuit Judge; a Governor
and currently as a U.S. Senator. He served his country in World War II,
and landed in Normandy on D-Day with the 82nd Airborne Division. He
went on to earn 5 Battle Stars during World War II and 18 military
decorations during his distinguished military career. He ran for
President in 1948. And in 1959, while serving in the U.S. Senate,
Senator Thurmond was made a Major General of the U.S. Army Reserve.
First and foremost, however, Senator Thurmond is a teacher. He began
his distinguished career as a teacher in South Carolina in 1923 and has
continued to emphasize the importance of education in everything he
does. He wrote the South Carolina school attendance law; worked hard to
increase the pay to teachers and for longer school terms; and even
today, Senator Thurmond continues to send a congratulatory certificate
to every graduating South Carolina high school student.
Senator Thurmond has taught all of us in this institution, Mr.
President, I am honored to call him a friend and am pleased to rise
today in tribute to this great man, this great American. It is fitting
that we name this bill in his honor, and my deepest congratulations go
out to him.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in tribute to
the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. It is indeed fitting that
we dedicate the 1999 Defense Authorization Bill in his honor.
Senator Thurmond has a long and distinguished record of service both
in the military and in the Congress. He was commissioned a 2nd
Lieutenant in 1924 and has since served this nation, and the military,
in positions of increasing responsibility. During World War II he
served in both Europe and Pacific. Afterwards he rose to the rank of
Major General in the Army Reserve. During his many years in the Senate
he toiled to insure that our military maintained the readiness
necessary to defend our great nation.
In recent years he has served as Chairman of the Army Services
Committee and rightfully earned a place in Senate history as one of the
greatest Chairmen of this important Committee. During these years the
Committee has faced many challenges in shaping a defense bill that met
the needs of a military in a world in change. His great experience in
military, national and international matters has made the difference in
providing for the nation's defense.
Senator Thurmond has been a personal inspiration during my years in
the Senate. I have always appreciated his guidance. Together, we have
worked in harmony for the good of the great state of South Carolina and
the Nation.
Again, I congratulate him!
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am humbled at the action that has been
suggested here. I have been on the Armed Services Committee for about
40 years and been a Member of this body for about 45 years, and I have
enjoyed every minute of it. It offers many opportunities to those who
love this country and feel that they want to serve it and create
something. I am very grateful to Senator Warner, my good friend,
Senator Levin, my good friend, and others who are interested in this
action that is being considered. I tell them I appreciate you and I
appreciate what you are doing, and I will never forget you.
Thank you very much.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we thank our distinguished colleague, and
at an appropriate time I am certain the majority leader and Democratic
leader will be present. At that time, we will pass on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Amendments Nos. 2783, 2791 as modified, 2792 as modified, 2823, 2867 as
modified, 2904 as modified, 2907, 2909 as modified, 2923 as modified,
2976 as modified, 3017 through 3032, 3035 through 3040, En Bloc
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send a series of cleared amendments to
the desk on behalf of the majority and minority Members and ask that
they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes
amendments Nos. 2783, 2791 as modified, 2792 as modified,
2823, 2867 as modified, 2904 as modified, 2907, 2909 as
modified, 2923 as modified, 2976 as modified, 3017 through
3032, 3035 through 3040, en bloc.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments Nos. 2783, 2791 as modified, 2792 as modified, 2823,
2867 as modified, 2904 as modified, 2907, 2909 as modified, 2923 as
modified, 2976 as modified, 3017 through 3032, 3035 through 3040, en
bloc, are as follows:
amendment no. 2783
(Purpose: To provide for the issuance of burial flags to deceased
members and former members of the Selected Reserve)
On page 268, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
SEC. 1064. ISSUANCE OF BURIAL FLAGS FOR DECEASED MEMBERS AND
FORMER MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE.
Section 2301(a) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (2)
and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) deceased individual who--
``(A) was serving as a member of the Selected Reserve (as
described in section 10143 of title 10) at the time of death;
``(B) had served at least one enlistment, or the period of
initial obligated service, as a member of the Selected
Reserve and was discharged from service in the Armed Forces
under conditions not less favorable than honorable; or
``(C) was discharged from service in the Armed Forces under
conditions not less favorable than honorable by reason of a
disability incurred or aggravated in line of duty during the
individual's initial enlistment, or period of initial
obligated service, as a member of the Selected Reserve.''.
____
amendment no. 2791 as modified
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Navy to carry out a vessel
scrapping pilot program)
At the end of subtitle B of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1014. SHIP SCRAPPING PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Navy shall carry out
a vessel scrapping pilot program within the United States
during fiscal years 1999 and 2000. The scope of the program
shall be that which the Secretary determines is sufficient to
gather data on the
[[Page S7123]]
cost of scrapping Government vessels domestically and to
demonstrate cost effective technologies and techniques to
scrap such vessels in a manner that is protective of worker
safety and health and the environment.
(b) Contract Award.--(1) The Secretary shall award a
contract or contracts under subsection (a) to the offeror or
offerors that the Secretary determines will provide the best
value to the United States, taking into account such factors
as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(2) In making a best value determination under this
subsection, the Secretary shall give a greater weight to
technical and performance-related factors than to cost and
price-related factors.
(3) The Secretary shall consider the technical
qualifications and past performance of the contractor and the
major subcontractors or team members of the contractor in
complying with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and
regulations for environmental and worker protection. In
accordance with the requirements of the Federal Acquisition
Regulation, in the case of an offeror without a record of
relevant past performance or for whom information on past
performance is not available, the offeror may not be
evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.
(c) Contract Terms and Conditions.--The contract or
contracts awarded by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b)
shall, at a minimum, provide for--
(1) the transfer of the vessel or vessels to the contractor
or contractors;
(2) the sharing by any appropriate contracting method the
costs of scrapping the vessel or vessels between the
government and the contractor or contractors;
(3) a performance incentive for a successful record of
environmental and worker protection; and
(4) Government access to contractor records in accordance
with the requirements of section 2313 of title 10, United
States Code.
(d) Reports.--(1) Not later than September 30, 1999, the
Secretary of the Navy shall submit an interim report on the
pilot program to the congressional defense committees. The
report shall contain the following:
(A) The procedures used for the solicitation and award of a
contract or contracts under the pilot program.
(B) The contract or contracts awarded under the pilot
program.
(2) Not later than September 30, 2000, the Secretary of the
Navy shall submit a final report on the pilot program to the
congressional defense committees. The report shall contain
the following:
(A) The results of the pilot program and the performance of
the contractors under such program.
(B) The Secretary's procurement strategy for future ship
scrapping activities.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by
Senators Glenn and Sarbanes.
I am pleased that this amendment has been accepted by the Chairman
and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, and I thank Senator
Thurmond, Senator Levin and Senator Warner for their assistance.
The amendment I am introducing today seeks to change the way we
dispose of unneeded Navy ships.
Our great Navy ships served valiantly--and they should be retired
with honor.
Instead, men die as they break these ships. Others are maimed
forever, Our waterways become terribly polluted. Then, when they're
done, we're left with torn hunks of metal--polluting our ports--and
requiring huge sums of money to clean-up.
With the end of the cold war the number of ships to be disposed of in
the military arsenal is growing. There are 180 Navy and Maritime
Administration ships waiting to be scrapped. These ships are difficult
and dangerous to dismantle. They usually contain asbestos, PCB's and
lead paint. They were built long before we understood all the
environmental hazards associated with these materials.
This issue was brought to my attention by a Pulitzer Prize-winning
series of articles that appeared in the Baltimore Sun written by
reporters Gary Cohn and Will Englund.
They conducted a thorough and rigorous investigation of the way we
dispose of our Navy and maritime ships. They traveled around the
country and around the world to see firsthand how our ships are
dismantled, and Mr. President, I must advise that the way we do this is
not being done in an honorable, environmentally sensitive, or efficient
way.
I believe when we have ships that have defended the United States of
America, that they were floating military bases--and they should be
retired with the same care and dignity with which we close a military
base.
Let me read from the Sun series:
As the Navy sells off warships at the end of the Cold War,
a little known industry has grown up. In America's depressed
ports and where the ship breaking industry goes, pollution
and injured workers are left in its wake.
The Pentagon repeatedly deals with ship breakers with
dismal records, then fails to keep watch as they leave
health, environmental and legal problems in their wake.
Of the 58 ships sold for scrapping since 1991, only 28 have been
finished. And oh, my God, how they have been finished. I would like to
turn to my own hometown of Baltimore.
Workers in Baltimore spoke about toiling in air thick with asbestos.
Laborers scrapped the U.S. Coral Sea, ripping asbestos insulation from
an aircraft carrier with their bare hands. At times they had no
respirators, standard equipment for asbestos workers. As we all know
inhaling those fibers can have lethal consequences.
Workers were ordered to stuff asbestos into a leaky barge to hide it
from inspectors. Dangerous substances from scrapped shipyards have
polluted harbors, rivers and shorelines, the Sun paper goes on to say.
This is what the Coral Sea looked like while it was being dismantled
in the Baltimore harbor. It looks like it was ravaged. Like it was
cannibalized.
The Coral Sea's dismantling had been marked by several fires. Dumping
oil in the harbor. Lawsuits and repeated delays. The mishandling of
asbestos. The Navy inspector refused to board the Coral Sea because he
was afraid it was too dangerous.
I am quoting now the Sun paper. ``September 16, 1993, the military
sent its lone inspector for the United States to the salvage yard in
Baltimore. He didn't inspect it because he thought it was too
dangerous.''
The inspector was right to be concerned about his own safety. The
next day a 23-year-old worker found out how safe it would be.
He walked on a flight deck and he dropped 30 feet from the hangar.
``I felt the burning feeling inside,'' he said, ``blood was coming out
of my mouth, I didn't think I would live. He suffered a fractured
spleen, pelvis, and broke his arms in several places.
At the same time we had repeated fires that were breaking out. In
November of 1996, a fire broke out in the Coral Sea's engine room. No
one was standing fire watch. No hose nearby. The blaze burned quickly
out of control and for the sixth time Baltimore City's fire department
had to come in and rescue a shipyard. At the same time the owner of the
shipyard had a record of environmental violations--a record for which
he ultimately was sentenced to jail.
All this was happening right in Baltimore Harbor. You've probably
passed it if you've taken the Baltimore Harbor tour. It is right across
from Fort McHenry--where we defended the United States of America and
won the second battle for the War of 1812. And look at it--that's what
it looks like--it is a national disgrace that was in the Harbor as well
as a national environmental danger.
It wasn't limited to Baltimore. In Terminal Island, California,
workers were fired when they told federal investigators how asbestos
was being improperly stripped from Navy ships.
A scrap yard from the southeast, Cape Fear, North Carolina, was so
contaminated with asbestos, oil, and lead, that David Heater, an
assistant attorney general, said the site looked like one of the levels
of Dante's hell. Now ship scrappers frustrate regulators by
constructing a maze of corporate names and moving frequently.
Meanwhile, right down the road from the Coral Sea in Baltimore was
the Baltimore city shipyard, the Bethlehem steel shipyard that was
foraging for work. We were desperate for work in our shipyard.
Desperate. But no, do you think the Navy turned to shipyards like
Bethlehem Ship?
While all of this has been going on, the Navy also planned to send
our ships overseas--where worker and environmental safety are virtually
ignored.
In India, the Sun paper found a tidal beach where 35,000 men scrapped
the world ships with little more than their bare hands. They worked
under wretched conditions.
This is the United States Navy ships being dismantled in India.
Thirty-five thousand people work on a beach, often with no shoes,
dismantling ships with their bare hands. This is an international
disgrace.
I introduced a bill to change the way we dispose of unneeded Navy
ships.
[[Page S7124]]
This bill had two parts. The first would ban the export of ships to
countries that don't care about protecting workers or the environment.
The second part would create a pilot program to use American shipyards
to break ships. Because while fly-by-night companies were attempting to
break ships, we had American shipyards foraging for work--both in
Baltimore and around the country.
The amendment I'm introducing today includes only the second part of
my legislation. This amendment will create a pilot program to enable
the Navy to develop new, efficient ways of breaking ships that meet
environmental and occupational safety standards.
The Navy raised legitimate concerns about my original bill. My bill
focused on competence. I wanted shipyards to break ships--because I
believe that our shipyards have the experience and facilities to break
ships safely. Shipyards, like the ones in my hometown of Baltimore,
that are fit for duty. They know how to build a ship, they know how to
convert a ship, they know how to dismantle a ship.
But the Navy was concerned that this would limit competition. So I
changed my amendment to insure full and open competition. Any competent
company can apply to participate in the pilot program.
What do I mean by ``competent?'' I mean that whoever breaks ships
must have a record of protecting their workers' safety and the
environment. They must have technical skills, a safe workplace, and a
record of complying with environmental laws.
So my amendment addresses competency--as well as competition. It will
make sure that ships are broken in a way that protects workers, the
environment, and the American taxpayer.
This amendment will enable the Navy to do a better job of disposing
of unneeded ships. My legislation will give the Navy the will and
resources to retire our ships with honor.
I knew when the Senate saw these pictures they would be as taken
aback as I have. I would like to thank the Sun paper for their
outstanding series in bringing this not only to my attention but to
America's attention.
They won the Pulitzer prize. But I want the United States of America
to be sure that we win a victory here today for workers, the
environment--and especially for the Navy. Because I know our Navy wants
to do the right, honorable thing.
Again, I thank Senator Thurmond, Senator Levin, and Senator Warner
for their support of my amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President. I would like to comment upon Senator
Mikulski's amendment to establish a Navy pilot program for ship
scrapping practices. While I support Senator Mikulski's amendment, I
would like to clarify some of the issues and concerns regarding this
amendment.
Worker safety and environmental issues related to the scrapping of
the U.S.S. Coral Sea were raised. I would like to note that the
contractor that conducted the scrapping work on behalf of the Navy
received criminal sanctions for environmental violations. In turn, the
Navy has worked very diligently to resolve and eliminate future
contractor problems in this area by adjusting its contractor selection
method to ensure that the contractor has the requisite technical,
financial, environmental, and worker safety qualifications.
Specifically, the Navy has replaced the lowest bidder methodology with
the requirement that a determination of best value be made in contract
selection.
Finally, there has been reference to the overseas scrapping of Navy
ships, as follows: ``In India, 35,000 men scrapped . . . ships with
little or more than their bare hands. They worked under wretched
conditions. This is an international disgrace.'' I have been informed
that the Navy has not contracted to scrap ships overseas. I have been
apprised of one incident in which the Navy transferred the title of one
Navy ship, the USS Bennington, to a contractor that misrepresented its
intentions regarding the use of that ship. That contractor subsequently
arranged for the scrapping of that ship in India. The scenario that I
have described involves one ship, not many, as suggested by some. The
Navy has modified its contracting procedures to avoid that type of
abuse in the future.
I firmly believe that the Navy has worked to resolve the worker
safety and environmental problems associated with ship scrapping,
consistent with the recommendations of the Department of Defense
Interagency Review Panel on Ship Scrapping, appointed by Mr. Gansler,
the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition and Technology. It is my
expectation that the Navy will continue to make progress as it
continues ongoing ship scrapping operations and develops a credible
pilot program that will ensure best value in the contract selection
process.
Under that pilot program, it is yet to be determined whether any
particular shipyard or contractor has the requisite expertise and
qualifications to conduct safe and environmentally sound ship
scrapping. I have supported the current version of Senator Mikulski's
amendment with the understanding that it allows the Navy the
flexibility and time to conduct meaningful analysis and to develop a
viable pilot program.
I thank Senator Mikulski for her cooperation in ensuring that this
amendment provides for a ship scrapping pilot program that encourages
competition and discourages favorable treatment of any particular
contractor or site.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
AMENDMENT NO. 2792 AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for emergency repairs and stabilization
measures at the historic district of the Forest Glen Annex of Walter
Reed Army Medical Center, Maryland)
On page 347, below line 23, add the following:
SEC. 2833. EMERGENCY REPAIRS AND STABILIZATION MEASURES,
FOREST GLEN ANNEX OF WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL
CENTER, MARYLAND.
Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by this Act,
$2,000,000 may be available for the completion of roofing and
other emergency repairs and stabilization measures at the
historic district of the Forest Glen Annex of Walter Reed
Army Medical Center, Maryland, in accordance with the plan
submitted under section 2865 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division B of Public
Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2806).
____
AMENDMENT NO. 2823
(Purpose: To require the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to carry out a program of assistance for State and local
governments to ensure the preparedness of those governments to respond
to potential emergencies resulting from the destruction of lethal
chemical agents and munitions)
At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1064. CHEMICAL STOCKPILE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM.
Section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization
Act, 1986 (Public Law 99-145; 50 U.S.C. 1521) is amended by
adding at the end of subsection (c) the following:
``(4)(A) The Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency shall carry out a program to provide assistance to
State and local governments in developing capabilities to
respond to emergencies involving risks to the public health
or safety within their jurisdictions that are identified by
the Secretary as being risks resulting from--
``(i) the storage of any such agents and munitions at
military installations in the continental United States; or
``(ii) the destruction of such agents and munitions at
facilities referred to in paragraph (1)(B).
``(B) No assistance may be provided under this paragraph
after the completion of the destruction of the United States
stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions.''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 2867 AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To make available $30,000,000 for the Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention program and $30,000,000 for the so-called
``nuclear cities'' initiative)
On page 397, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 3137. NONPROLIFERATION ACTIVITIES.
(a) Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program.--Of
the amount authorized to be appropriated by section
3103(1)(B), $30,000,000 may be available for the Initiatives
for Proliferation Prevention program.
(b) Nuclear Cities Initiative.--Of the amount authorized to
be appropriated by section 3103(1)(B), $30,000,000 may be
available for the purpose of implementing the initiative
arising pursuant to the March 1998 discussions between the
Vice President of the United States and the Prime Minister of
the Russian Federation and between the Secretary of Energy of
the United States and the Minister of Atomic Energy of the
Russian Federation (the so-called ``nuclear cities''
initiative).
[[Page S7125]]
____
AMENDMENT NO. 2904, AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the August 1995
assassination attempt against President Shevardnadze of Georgia)
At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING THE AUGUST 1995
ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT AGAINST PRESIDENT
SHEVARDNADZE OF GEORGIA.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On Tuesday, August 29, 1995, President Eduard
Shevardnadze of Georgia narrowly survived a car bomb attack
as he departed his offices in the Georgian Parliament
building to attend the signing ceremony for the new
constitution of Georgia.
(2) The former Chief of the Georgian National Security
Service, Lieutenant General Igor Giorgadze, after being
implicated in organizing the August 29, 1995, assassination
attempt on President Shevardnadze, fled Georgia from the
Russian-controlled Varziani airbase on a Russian military
aircraft.
(3) Lieutenant General Giorgadze has been seen openly in
Moscow and is believed to have been given residence at a
Russian government facility despite the fact that Interpol is
conducting a search for Lieutenant General Giorgadze for his
role in the assassination attempt against President
Shervardnadze.
(4) The Russian Interior Ministry claims that it is unable
to locate Lieutenant General Giorgadze in Moscow.
(5) The Georgian Security and Interior Ministries presented
information to the Russian Interior Ministry on November 13,
1996; January 17, 1997; March 7, 1997; March 24, 1997 and
August 12, 1997, which included the exact location in Moscow
of where Lieutenant General Giorgadze's family lived, the
exact location where Lieutenant General Giorgadze lived
outside of Moscow in a dacha of the Russian Ministry of
Defense; as well as the changing official Russian government
license tag numbers and description of the automobile that
Lieutenant General Giorgadze uses; the people he associates
with; the apartments he visits, and the places including
restaurants, markets, and companies, that he frequents.
(6) On May 12, 1998, the Moscow-based Russian newspaper
Zavtra carried an interview with Lieutenant General Giorgadze
in which Lieutenant General Giorgadze calls for the overthrow
of the Government of Georgia.
(7) Title II of the Foreign Operations Appropriations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
1998 (Public Law 105-118) prohibits assistance to any
government of the new independent states of the former Soviet
Union if that government directs any action in violation of
the national sovereignty of any other new independent state.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the Secretary of Defense should--
(1) urge the Government of the Russian Federation to
extradite the former Chief of the Georgian National Security
Service, Lieutenant General Igor Giorgadze, to Georgia for
the purpose of standing trial for his role in the attempted
assassination of Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze on
August 29, 1995;
(2) request cooperation from the Minister of Defense of the
Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian
Federation to ensure that Russian military bases on Georgian
territory are no longer used to facilitate the escape of
assassins seeking to kill the freely elected President of
Georgia and to otherwise respect the national sovereignty of
Georgia; and
(3) use all authorities available to the U.S. Government to
provide urgent and immediate assistance to ensure to the
maximum extent practicable the personal security of President
Shevardnadze.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to introduce a resolution
calling upon the Administration to do its utmost to protect the
personal security of President Eduard Shevardnadze of Georgia. Against
overwhelming odds, President Shevardnadze has fought for his country's
sovereignty and independence and has led it to a position where it is
starting to achieve positive economic growth and is making great
strides towards democracy. President Shevardnadze is a world class
leader, and he and his country are natural allies of the United States
in a part of the world that is crucial to the geo-political interests
of the United States.
President Shevardnadze has accomplished these great achievements
under the most difficult circumstances one could imagine. There have
been two assassination attempts in the last three years alone and he
has been working tirelessly to reach peaceful resolution with the
separatist forces within Georgia. As if this weren't difficult enough,
he has had to do this in the face of continual undermining by certain
forces within the Russian Federation.
A case in point is Abkhazia: since the break-up of the Soviet Union,
Russia has been using Abkhazia to maintain control in Georgia and in
the Caucasus: the Russians encouraged separatists forces, armed and
supported with fighters, intelligence and air power and used the
resultant instability to force President Shevardnadze and Georgia to
join the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
Russia also used this weakness to force the presence of Russian bases
on Georgian territory. President Shevardnadze was forced to sign the
military base agreement allowing Russia troops to be stationed in
Georgia without compensation, in fact Georgia is forced to pay Russia.
And when he objected, President Shevardnadze was told point blank by
the Russian Prime Minister either to sign the base agreement or Russia
would put someone else in his place to sign it.
Russian strategy in Georgia appears to be a combination of factors
driven by those who seek to pay President Shevardnadze back for his
dismantling of the Soviet empire, and those who seek to prevent Caspian
oil and other commerce from following through Georgia to the West, and
who wish to break Georgia's increasingly close ties to the West and to
the United States in particular.
The destabilizing activities have not stopped and include attempts to
assassinate President Shevardnadze himself. On August 29, 1995 he
narrowly survived a car bomb attack as he departed his offices in the
Georgian Parliament building to attend the signing ceremony for the new
constitution of Georgia. The former Chief of the Georgian National
Security Service, Lieutenant General Igor Giorgadze, after being
implicated in organizing this attempt on President Shevardnadze's life,
escaped to Moscow after fleeing Georgia from the Russian-controlled
Varziani airbase on a Russian military aircraft.
Since that time, Giorgadze has been spotted on a number of occasions
in Moscow and the Georgians have repeatedly requested his extradition
to Georgia. But despite the specificity of the information presented to
them about Giogadze's whereabouts in Russia, the Russian Interior
Ministry has claimed repeatedly that it is unable to locate Mr.
Giorgadze. In short, Russia has refused to extradite him to Georgia for
trial.
Further, Mr. President, another violent attempt was made on President
Shevardnadze's life in February of this year. Here again, the
perpetrators of this heinous act fled Georgia from a Russian military
base. And barely a month later, two escort planes which were to escort
the President's flight from the Turkish border on a return flight to
the Georgian capital Tbilsi, were found sabotaged and inoperable, thus
forcing the President's plane to return unescorted and unprotected and
in direct danger of air attack. Those disabled planes, Mr. President,
were sabotaged while on the ground in a Russian military base in
Georgia.
Throughout all these events, the Administration has remained
shockingly silent. This is unacceptable behavior towards a friend an
ally. In the face of the clear pattern of destabilization in which
Russia is engaged, the Administration should not have to be prodded to
stand up and speak loudly in defense of this friend and ally.
Unfortunately, a reticence to engage Russia on its bad behavior in
Georgia and the Caucasus has led to an unacceptable passivity on the
part of the Administration. It is time for this to change. And it must
change soon.
There is no need to remind my colleagues that Title II of the Foreign
Operations Appropriations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, prohibits assistance to any government of the
former Soviet Union if that government directs any action in violation
of the national sovereignty of any other new independent state.
The sense of the senate I am introducing today calls upon the
Administration to step up its pressure on Russia to extradite Igor
Giorgadze, the alleged perpetrator of the August 1995 assassination
attempt on President Shevardnadze; and to stop using its bases in
Georgia as an escape for assassins and terrorists; and to provide all
assistance necessary to provide for the personal safety of President
Shevardnadze.
This resolution is just a first step. I believe the United States
should be pressing Russia to remove its bases
[[Page S7126]]
from Russia--after all, they are there against the will of the Georgian
people. And I now call upon the Administration to stand up for
President Shevardnadze and for Georgia, and to publicly and loudly
condemn the efforts of any group that seeks to destabilize Georgia. I
hope my colleagues will join me in sending this message and will
support this resolution.
amendment no. 2907
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Energy to select the technology
to be used for tritium production by December 31, 1998)
On page 398, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
SEC. 3144. DEADLINE FOR SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGY FOR TRITIUM
PRODUCTION.
(a) Deadline.--The Secretary of Energy shall select a
technology for the production of tritium not later than
December 31, 1998.
(b) Options Available for Selection.--Notwithstanding any
provision of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et
seq.), after the completion of the Department of Energy's
evaluation of their Interagency Review on the production of
Tritium, the Secretary shall make the selection for tritium
production consistent with the laws, regulations and
procedures of the Department of Energy as stated in
subsection (a).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, for accepting my
amendment which ensures the dual track strategy the Department of
Energy (DOE) is currently pursuing for tritium production will remain
in place. Acceptance of this amendment ensures the Secretary of Energy
will have the flexibility to make the best decision based on a careful
review of the cost, technical, schedule and policy issues associated
with each of the tritium production options.
In May, during the House National Security Committee's deliberation
of the FY '99 Department of Defense (DOD) re-authorization bill, an
amendment offered by Congressmen Markey and Graham was accepted without
a roll call vote. Their amendment (Markey/Graham amendment) would
preclude the Secretary of Energy from selecting a commercial light
water reactor for the production of tritium. The Markey/Graham
amendment, if passed into law, would force the Secretary of Energy to
select the Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT) by eliminating the
option to produce tritium using a Commercial Light Water Reactor
(CLWR). The APT is the only other option currently available to the
Department of Energy. The results of this action would, in my opinion,
require the Secretary to select the highest risk and most expensive
option to produce tritium--a decision which could saddle the taxpayers
with a $14.5 billion debt. To put this in context, $14.5 billion is
more money than the states of Alabama, New Hampshire, South Carolina,
Virginia, Rhode Island, Idaho, Oklahoma, Mississippi and New Mexico
combined will receive during the next five years under the recently
passed TEA21 transportation bill.
The White House, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Defense and the
Citizens Against Government Waste have all written letters in
opposition to the Markey/Graham amendment in the House-passed bill,
which would prevent the Department of Energy from making the best
decision on tritium production.
In a Statement of Administration Policy to House National Security
Committee dated May 20th, 1998, the Administration voiced its concern
over the amendment to the House DoD re-authorization bill and stated:
``The Administration strongly opposes . . . amendments . .
. to prohibit the use of commercial light water reactors for
the production of tritium; by eliminating the least costly,
most technically mature option under consideration by DOE.
Tritium production in commercial reactors is not inconsistent
with U.S. non-proliferation policy''.
Furthermore, in a letter dated June 23rd, 1998, the Secretary of
Energy restated the Administration's position:
``The Administration strongly opposes this amendment and
any amendment that prejudges departmental decision making
within the dual track strategy. A careful and deliberate
review of cost, technical, schedule, and policy issues
associated with each option is essential to meet our security
needs most economically and reliably''.
And finally, in a letter provided to me June 25th, 1998, the
Secretary of Defense stated:
``DoD opposes the amendments for three reasons. First, if
the amendments were to become law, DOE would require an
immediate additional investment of nearly $250 million to
accelerate the development of APT. The long term impacts of
the amendment are far more significant. The life cycle cost
of APT could be as high as $8.8 billion. The life cycle cost
of the Reactor option could be as low as $1.6 billion. Thus,
the amendments could mandate an unfunded liability of up to
$7.6 billion . . . Second, the amendments would likely
increase the cost of the DOD Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Finally, this amendment seems to be predicated on the
assumption that the use of commercial reactors is
inconsistent with the US non proliferation policy. It is not.
The DOE will forward shortly a completed interagency report
that concludes the non proliferation policy issues associated
with the use of a reactor are manageable and that the DOE
should continue to pursue the reactor option as a viable
source for future tritium production. . .Therefore, I urge
you to oppose amendments which would prohibit the Reactor
production of tritium from being considered as an option.
Passage of any such amendment would place the Defense
Authorization bill at risk''.
Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that all three letters
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, D.C., May 20, 1998.
Statement of Administration Policy
h.r. 3616--national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1999
(Spence (R) SC and Skelton (D) MO)
The Administration supports prompt congressional
consideration of its national defense authorization
legislative proposal for FY 1999. As reported by the
Committee on National Security, however, H.R. 3616 raises
serious budget and policy concerns which must be addressed
satisfactorily. The Administration also has particular
concerns, addressed below, about a number of amendments which
have been ruled in order for floor consideration.
Reduction of Department of Energy (DOE) Funds
The Administration strongly objects to the net reduction of
$401 million from DOE's defense activities, particularly the
$358 million cut from weapons activities and the earmarking
of $60 million from the Stockpile Stewardship account for
DOD's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. A significant
portion of the Stockpile Stewardship reduction results from
$341 million taken from prior year balances which are not
available. This will force real reductions in critical
programs needed to ensure the safety, security, and
reliability of America's nuclear deterrent.
In addition, the Administration opposes the $230 million
reduction in the Environmental Management Privatization
account that cuts funds which are needed to demonstrate to
the financial investment community the Administration's
commitment to the privatization approach, and which are
required to complete key nuclear waste disposal facilities.
The bill would also delay the decision to select a primary
source for tritium until the results of tests at the Watts
Bar nuclear station are determined. This would delay the
selection decision by over one year, increase the costs of
the program, and prevent the Department from meeting its 2005
deadline for achieving a tritium production capability. The
Administration also opposes the premature sun-setting of the
Worker and Community Transition Program, which has
facilitated the orderly reduction of 43,000 contractor
employees at DOE sites since 1992.
Program Funding
H.R. 3616 would reduce funding for basic and applied
research by over $1 billion in FY 1999. This research
provides the fundamental knowledge and technical know-how
required to develop future defense systems. The failure to
provide adequate funding for this research will ultimately
result in the inability to upgrade systems at an adequate
pace. The Administration strongly urges the House to
authorize the Administration's full $4.1 billion request for
these programs.
Conversely, the bill adds a net total of $250 million for
procurement and $450 million for constructions programs. Some
of these increases are for programs that, due to higher
priority military requirements, are not in the Future Years
Defense Program (FYDP). This includes, for example, $398
million for seven additional C-130J airlift aircraft, and
$300 million for other unrequested items for the National
Guard and Reserve. These increases for lower priority
weapons modernization and military construction programs
would be at the expense of higher priority defense
programs.
The Administration appreciates the bill's emphasis on
preserving military readiness through strong funding for
maintenance and spare parts. Force readiness could be
threatened, however, by the bill's reductions to other O&M
programs. The President's request is very tightly constructed
within the discretionary caps agreed to the bipartisan budget
agreement. Any adjustments must be carefully evaluated to
ensure that sufficient funding is available for DoD
operations and support programs. The Administration will work
with the Congress to reexamine any adjustments to the O&M
programs prior to final congressional action on the bill.
[[Page S7127]]
In particular, the Administration opposes the bill's $500
million funding reduction for defense contractual services,
which are an integral part of DOD functions and are essential
to critical military objectives. This reduction would have a
direct adverse impact on operational readiness and
modernization. The prohibitions and limitations on: (1)
accounting procedures for contractual services and (2) the
performance of core logistics capabilities are also
objectionable. In addition, the bill's requirement for a
comprehensive annual review of Defense service contracts
would be costly and divert personnel from higher priority
areas.
Base Realignment and Closure
The Administration is disappointed that the bill does not
adopt the Defense proposal to authorize two additional rounds
of base closure and realignment in 2001 and 2005. Defense's
base infrastructure is far too large for its military forces
and must be reduced if the Department is to obtain adequate
appropriations for readiness and modernization requirements
during the next decade.
Gender Integrated Training
The Administration strongly opposes any legislatively
mandated changes for initial entry training within the
military services.
The Federal Advisory Committee on Gender Integrated
Training and Related Issues made several recommendations on
training that have been reviewed by the Secretary of Defense
and each of the services. In addition to the Committee's
recommendations, the Secretary directed the services to take
additional action in the areas of training leadership,
training rigor, and recruit billeting. The services have each
taken a number of steps in support of the Committee's
recommendations and Secretary's additional direction. The
implementation of future initiatives will also be monitored.
All actions are geared toward providing new recruits with the
best training possible in a safe and secure environment. In
order to achieve this goal, each service must be allowed to
tailor its basic training as needed to prepare recruits for
their specific service's missions. Legislation at this time
would be counter productive to meeting this goal.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
H.R. 3616 does not include authorities requested to allow a
more rapid response to threats to U.S. forces, and permit
Defense to support interagency efforts to combat terrorism.
The bill also defers action on authorizing the National Guard
and Reserves to assist other Federal, state, and local
authorities in responding to domestic terrorist incidents
involving weapons of mass destruction. These authorities are
critical to improving the Nation's ability to deter and
combat terrorism. The Administration strongly urges prompt
congressional enactment of these important authorities.
Bosnia Expenditure Cap
The Administration opposes section 1201 which would impose
an expenditure limitation on funds for U.S. participation in
Bosnia peacekeeping operations. It is imperative that the
Administration retain the flexibility necessary to meet
exigent circumstances.
Chemical Weapons Convention
The Administration urges the House to include the requested
authorization of appropriations for the DOD to reimburse the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for
costs incurred in inspecting DOD sites and facilities. These
funds are necessary to fulfill the requirements of the
recently ratified Chemical Weapons Convention.
Management Issues
A number of provisions in H.R. 3616 would undermine the
Administration's efforts to improve governmental operations.
For example, the bill would terminate a DOD ``household goods
moving services'' pilot program that was designed to adopt
corporate business practices and foster competition. The bill
would replace this DOD pilot with an approach that was
proposed by the industry that perpetuates the current
inefficient system.
The Administration objects to section 337 which would
require DOD to perform depot-level maintenance and repair of
the C-17 at Government-owned, Government-operated facilities.
This section also states that the C-17 Flexible Sustainment
contract does not meet the requirements of law. Although the
language is specific to the C-17 support contract, it has far
reaching implications for many DOD weapon systems. The bill
sets a precedent for bypassing the DOD risk assessment and
core determination process, and directing that weapon systems
be supported in public depots without regard to cost or
readiness. The resulting investments would have a significant
adverse affect on DOD's long term plans for funding.
Section 336 of the bill would require complicated and
cumbersome tests for determining what qualifies as a
commercial item under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2464, and would require
application of those tests to determine whether or not a V-22
engine component or system is a ``commercial item'' that, by
definition, should be procured with simplified, streamlined
procurement procedures. Whether intended or not, the
provision would duplicate a capability that already exists
commercially.
Section 331 of the bill would expand current requirements
that the Secretary report to Congress before outsourcing any
commercial or industrial type function currently accomplished
in-house. This would be counterproductive to efficient and
effective government, and should be deleted. These additional
requirements would only slow the process, discourage
contractors from taking over activities that DOD no longer
needs to perform in-house, and waste money that should be
used to modernize DOD weapons systems.
Military Pay Raise
H.R. 3616 contains a minimum of a 3.6 percent increase in
basic pay for military members, an increase that is 0.5
percent higher than the amount requested. At this time, the
Administration is reviewing the implications of a higher pay
raise, and will work with Congress to provide a fair pay
raise that does not force unacceptable reductions in other
high priority Defense programs.
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)
The Administration generally supports the bill's
authorizations for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program
and urges full funding of the FY 1999 request for CTR. The
Administration opposes, however, language that would
restrict the use of CTR funds for chemical weapons
destruction facility construction. The restriction would
preclude any construction until FY 2000, thereby imposing
a minimum delay of one year in the current project
schedule.
The Administration, as it continues to review H.R. 3616,
may identify other issues, and will work with the Congress to
develop a more acceptable bill.
Unacceptable Amendments
In addition, the Administration strongly opposes a number
of seriously problematic amendments that may be offered,
including:
Any amendment that would further restrict or prohibit
licensing of commercial satellite launches by China. Transfer
to China or Chinese entities of technology, data, or defense
services relevant to ballistic missiles or warhead delivery
is controlled under the Arms Export Control Act. Existing
procedures, including the bilateral Satellite Technology
Safeguards Agreement (negotiated under the Bush
Administration and signed in February 1993) explicitly
prohibit transfer of ballistic missile technology to China.
Any amendment to require licenses for nuclear exports and
retransfers to non-OECD countries to be reported to Congress
30 days before issuance. Such a requirement is unnecessary as
applications for licenses to export controlled nuclear
technology and items are already reported to the public
immediately upon fling with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The licensing process provides for a unique
degree of transparency, including public intervention. To
require such a notification before licenses are issued to
non-OECD countries would impose significant delays to many
commercial contracts, reducing U.S. commercial
competitiveness, and reducing U.S. influence with countries
of great importance to our nuclear non-proliferation efforts.
The amendment which would cap expenditures for NATO
enlargement at $2 billion or 10 percent of the total cost. At
the Madrid summit Allied heads of State and government agreed
that the costs of NATO enlargement would be reasonable and
they would be met in accordance with current Alliance
procedures. After careful study, NATO agreed that the costs
of enlargement to the Alliance common budgets for the first
10 years would be $1.5 billion. Using the current shares of
NATO common budget that would mean the costs to the U.S.
during that period would be approximately $400 million.
However, a reduction to 10 percent of enlargement costs as
called for in the amendment is neither reasonable nor
consistent with the Madrid communique agreed by all Allied
heads of state and government.
Prohibit the use of commercial light water reactors for the
production of tritium; eliminating the least costly, most
technically mature opinion under consideration by DOE.
Tritium production in commercial reactors is not inconsistent
with U.S. nonproliferation policy. There have been several
instances of cooperation between U.S. military and civilian
nuclear programs, including dual use of uranium enrichment
facilities and commercial sale of electricity originating
from a weapons material production reactor.
The inclusion of such amendments in the bill presented to
the President would be unacceptable.
____
The Secretary of Energy
Washington, DC, June 23, 1998.
Hon. Jeff Sessions,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
Dear Senator Sessions: The Department of Energy must
establish a new source of tritium to maintain the U.S.
nuclear weapons stockpile. Currently, the Department is
pursuing a dual-track strategy for tritium production, which
calls for the development of two technology options: use of
an existing commercial light water reactor or the
construction of a linear accelerator for the production of
tritium. The Department has pursued this strategy for more
than two years under the direction of the Congress and with
the approval of the Department of Defense through the Nuclear
Weapons Council. We remain on schedule to select a new
tritium production source by December 31, 1998, consistent
with existing law.
Last month an amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY 1999 (H.R. 3616) was adopted that
would prohibit the Department's ability to pursue the
Commercial Light Water Reactor option of the dual
[[Page S7128]]
track strategy. The Administration strongly opposes this
amendment and any amendment that prejudges departmental
decision making within the dual track strategy. A careful and
deliberate review of the cost, technical, schedule, and
policy issues associated with each option is essential to
meet our security needs most economically and reliably.
The amendment to prohibit the Department's use of a
commercial light water reactor for tritium production was
predicated on an assumption that the use of such reactors to
produce tritium is inconsistent with U.S. proliferation
policy. The Department will forward shortly a completed
interagency review that concludes that the nonproliferation
policy issues associated with the use of a commercial light
water reactor are manageable and that the Department should
continue to pursue the reactor option as a viable source for
future tritium production. This Administration conclusion was
reached after an extensive and interactive review process
involving a wide range of Executive Branch agencies.
I appreciate your consideration of our views and concerns
regarding this issue. If you have any questions, please call
me or have your staff contact Mr. John C. Angell, Assistant
Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, at
(202) 586-5450.
Sincerely,
Federico Pena
____
The Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC, June 25, 1998.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express the opinion of
the Department of Defense on proposed amendments to the
Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization bill that prohibit
commercial light water reactors from producing tritium for
military purposes.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is pursuing a dual-track
program to produce tritium. One method is to use a commercial
light water reactor (CLWR) to irradiate rods from which
tritium could be extracted at a DOE facility--in effect,
buying irradiation services. The other approach is to build
an accelerator to produce tritium (APT). DOE will decide on a
primary method by the end of this calendar year. The proposed
amendments would effectively foreclose the CLWR option.
DoD opposes the amendments for three reasons. First, if the
amendments become law, DOE would require an immediate
additional investment of nearly $250M to accelerate
development of APT. The long term impacts of the amendments
are far more significant. The life cycle cost of APT could be
as high as $8.8B. The life cycle cost of the CLWR program
could be as low as $1.2B. Thus, the amendments could mandate
an unfunded liability of up to $7.6B. Second, the amendments
would likely increase the cost of the DOE stockpile
stewardship program (SSP). Finally, this amendment appears to
be predicated on an assumption that the use of commercial
reactors for tritium production is inconsistent with the US
nonproliferation policy. It is not. The DOE will forward
shortly a completed interagency report that concludes that
the nonproliferation policy issues associated with the use of
a commercial light water reactor are manageable and that the
DOE should continue to pursue the reactor option as a viable
source for future tritium production. The DoD fully endorses
this position.
In conclusion, DOE has a dual-track program to develop an
assured supply of tritium. Until DOE reaches its decision
later this year, the wisest choice is to leave our options
open. Therefore, I urge you to oppose the amendments that
would prohibit CLWR from being considered as an option.
Passage of any such amendment would place the Defense
Authorization bill at risk.
Respectfully,
Bill Cohen.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that a
letter sent to me by the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW),
along with a June 25th article from the Washington Times on tritium
both be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Council for
Citizens Against Government Waste,
Washington, DC, June 23, 1998.
Hon. Jeff Sessions,
U.S. Senate, Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sessions: On behalf of America's taxpayers,
and the 600,000 members of the Council for Citizens Against
Government Waste (CCAGW), we are pleased to endorse your
amendment to the FY 1999 National Defense Authorization Act,
which ensures that the government procures tritium in the
most cost-efficient method.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is responding to Defense
Department needs for tritium by carefully considering two
options recommended by The Weapons Council: use of a nearly
complete commercial light water reactor at Bellefonte in
Alabama; or construction of a large new accelerator at the
Savannah River federal site in South Carolina. While we are
not qualified to comment on dependability, technology, and
non-proliferation policy issues concerning these two options,
CCAGW feels compelled to point out the obvious cost
advantages of the light water reactor option. By any
measurement, use of a commercial reactor is the lower cost
tritium production option. This option should not be
legislatively excluded as provided in the House-passed Markey
amendment.
Every budget estimate confirms that construction and
operation of an accelerator costs significantly more than the
commercial reactor. DOE estimates that the seven-year startup
costs for the accelerator will be $3.9 billion with $120
million in annual operating costs. CBO's cost estimate for
the accelerator is $6.72 billion. These cost estimates
reflect only a modest level of accuracy since they are based
on a preliminary conceptual design. Any cost overruns would
be borne by the taxpayers. Recent proposals for modular
construction of the accelerator will still cost at least $2.6
billion, and these proposals fail to include substantial
engineering design and safety expenses.
In contrast, the Bellefonte reactor option will cost only
$1.9 billion to complete construction and start producing
tritium in five years. Unlike the accelerator, the commercial
reactor will generate about $100 million annually in revenues
for the Treasury from the production and sale of electricity.
The Bellefonte cost estimate is a fixed price that has been
certified by several independent reviews as having a very
high-level of accuracy. The reactor owner would pay any cost
overruns.
From a common sense perspective, the commercial reactor
option has to be a better deal for the taxpayer. The
Bellefonte reactor is already 90 percent complete whereas
ground has not even been broken for construction of the
accelerator which is still undergoing conceptual design.
Finishing a nearly-complete facility obviously must cost less
than designing and building a new facility.
No matter how you compare it, the commercial reactor option
is more cost-effective, Construction of a new accelerator
will be anywhere from 70 percent to almost 300 percent more
expensive than the guaranteed fixed price of a commercial
reactor. Moreover, the commercial reactor will generate
revenues every year for the Treasury while the accelerator
will require annual appropriations to operate.
Given the obviously significant cost advantages, the
commercial reactor should not be excluded as an option as
proposed by the House. We applaude you placing politics aside
and putting the interest of the taxpayers first. We offer our
full assistance in this effort.
Sincerely,
Council Nedd II,
Director of Government Affairs.
____
[From the Washington Times, June 25, 1998]
Nuclear Material Causes Senate Spat
(By Sean Scully)
An obscure House amendment to the Defense Department budget
is sparking an interstate battle in the Senate--a fight that
could cost U.S. taxpayers an extra $4 billion.
Without having a debate or taking a recorded vote, the
House passed an amendment on May 21 to prohibit commercial
nuclear reactors from producing tritium, a radioactive
substance used to increase the effectiveness of nuclear
weapons. As a result, the Energy and Defense departments must
abandon a $2 billion plan to produce tritium in an Alabama
reactor in favor of building a new production facility in
South Carolina, which could cost up to $6.7 billion.
``I think I am morally bound to do everything I can to stop
this colossal error that may be in the making,'' said Sen.
Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican and leader of the effort to
block a similar amendment in the Senate.
But backers of the amendment say there is far more at stake
than cost.
The United States has long drawn a sharp line between
military and civilian nuclear programs, backers say, and
producing tritium at a commercial power plant would blur that
line.
``It takes 50 years of policy and turns it on its head. . .
. This is a major change of policy that has ripple effects
beyond comprehension,'' said Rep. Lindsey Graham, South
Carolina Republican and cosponsor of the House amendment.
If the United States begins using a civilian reactor for
military purpose, even for the relatively benign tritium, the
administration will have a more difficult time convincing
nations such as North Korea and India not to use their
reactors to make bomb material, supporters said.
``It's just not smart, it's not the right thing to do,''
especially in light of the recent nuclear tests by India and
Pakistan, said Maury Lane, spokesman for Sen. Ernest F.
Hollings, South Carolina Democrat.
The Alabama faction disagrees. Trituim, they say, is not
part of non-proliferation treaties and is widely produced in
civilian reactors worldwide, although not in the United
States.
The real issue is cost, Mr. Sessions said.
In May 1997, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that
buying an existing reactor, or completing a new one, would
cost about $1.9 billion. The Alabama reactor, owned by the
Tennessee Valley Authority, is about 85 percent complete. The
TVA promises to give the Energy Department 60 percent of the
profits from selling electricity produced by the plant--as
much as $100 million per year--which could offset much of the
cost of building and operating the reactor.
[[Page S7129]]
The CBO estimated, meanwhile, that the South Carolina
plant, known as an accelerator, would cost $6.7 billion. And,
while the technology of accelerators is well understood, it
has never been used to create tritium on this scale before.
``We simply cannot afford to spend that much extra money in
the defense budget, which is extraordinarily tight,'' Mr.
Sessions said.
The South Carolina side, however, said the CBO numbers are
based on outdated data. Mr. Graham said the current
accelerator plan is much smaller, costing about $2 billion.
``The costs are--at best--a wash,'' he said.
But at the root of the dispute may be home-district
politics, a fact that partisans on both sides admit. The CBO
estimates that almost 400 jobs are at stake in South Carolina
and as many as 800 in Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, under current law, the Department of
Energy has been going forward with a dual track process to decide on
the technology selection of tritium. DOE is to choose the best option
to produce tritium based on cost and merit. The House-passed Markey/
Graham amendment, eliminates DOE's decision-making authority and would
put the national defense at risk by relying on an unproven technology.
The Markey/Graham amendment is fiscally irresponsible and would prevent
the Secretary from making a merit-based decision.
Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen which is used in all
nuclear weapons of the United States. It has a relatively short half
life of 12.3 years and must be replaced periodically as long our
nation's defense relies on nuclear deterrence.
In 1993, Congress required the Secretary of Energy to submit a report
to Congress with a schedule to produce tritium to meet our defense
needs. Later that year, the Secretary submitted a report indicating
that under START II, tritium production would need to resume by 2009.
However, since the START II treaty has not been ratified, as is now the
case, the DOE has stated tritium production needs to begin by 2005.
On December 6th, 1995 the Department of Energy issued a Record of
Decision to pursue a dual-track approach to produce tritium. This
process was recommended by the President's Nuclear Weapons Council. The
first option is to use the services of a reactor to produce tritium.
The second option is to design, build and test a particle accelerator
at Savannah River to drive tritium producing nuclear reactions. Both
options would be required to produce tritium by the 2009 deadline, but
only the reactor option could meet the 2005 deadline. The DOE is
scheduled to announce its choice for tritium production by the end of
1998.
The Department of Energy needs to pursue the dual-track option for
the production of tritium. The Markey/Graham amendment prevents the DOE
from making their decision, and ties the Secretary of Energy's hands,
throwing competition out the window and saddling the American taxpayer
with a huge $16.7 billion dollar debt.
Mr. President, the House-passed Markey/Graham amendment to the
Department of Defense re-authorization bill sole sources the Secretary
of Energy's options for tritium production and forces the Secretary to
select the least reliable, highest cost option--APT. Even the DOE's
Accelerator Production of Tritium program managers suggest the
accelerator may not be able to produce enough tritium to fulfill our
defense needs according to a June 8th, 1998 DOE letter in response to
my technical questions regarding the accelerator program.
The CLWR option to produce tritium is a proven technology which
allows the US to maintain its nuclear preparedness. It uses safe,
reliable technology at no net cost to the DOE. In fact, the reactor
option to produce tritium could actually net the Federal Government a
$2.4 billion profit over the forty year life of the program.
In contrast, the Accelerator needed for APT is estimated to cost $5.4
billion just to complete. There is no mechanism to ever recapture these
costs. In addition, an Accelerator, of the size needed to fulfill our
defense needs, would require a tremendous amount of electricity to
operate. The annual operational costs of the Accelerator are estimated
to be between $120 - $180 million per year. Using the latest
inflationary factors developed by Office of Management and Budget of
2.2% and the $180 million annual operating cost estimate put forth in
the May, 1997 Congressional Budget Office report titled Preserving the
Nuclear Stockpile Under a Comprehensive Test Ban, the life-cycle
operating costs for the Accelerator Production of Tritium would be a
staggering $11.356 billion over forty years. In total, the operations
and maintenance costs, coupled with the cost to complete construction
of APT could top $16.756 billion.
The Commercial Light Water Reactor option to produce tritium will
cost only $1.9 billion--an investment which will be paid back and
generate additional revenue to the Treasury in excess of $2.4 billion
over the forty year life of the reactor. It would provide the
government with a free supply of tritium and generate revenue through
the generation and sale of electrical power.
The APT will require 2,600,000 megawatts-hours of power each year to
operate. This is the equivalent of the electricity requirements of a
medium size city like Huntsville and Decatur, Alabama. The power
required to operate the APT will result in increased emissions of
sulfur, carbon, particulate matter and ozone creating gases and serve
to work against our efforts to clean the environment.
According to data collected by the Edison Electric Institute, even
today's cleanest fossil fuel powered electric plants will emit between
4 million and 9 million tons of carbon; 17,000 and 42,000 tons of
Sulfur Dioxide (major contributor to acid rain); and between 870 and
7,100 tons of Nitrous Oxide (major ozone contributor) per year just to
generate the same amount of power as the emissions free reactor option
to produce tritium. Clearly, the reactor option is the preferred choice
for the environment.
To maintain our country's nuclear preparedness under the only signed
and enforceable treaty, START I, the Department of Defense needs a
production capacity of at least 3 kilograms of tritium per year by
2005. The cost estimates on the APT provided by the Department of
Energy, at my request, suggest the accelerator, if its experimental
technology were to work without failure or shutdown, may only be able
to produce 1.5 to 2.0 kilograms of tritium per year. This is not enough
to maintain our nuclear arsenal.
The earliest the APT will be able to produce tritium is 2007 which
could cause the Department of Defense to dip into our Tritium Reserve
Stockpile to maintain our readiness. The Reactor option can produce
tritium using safe, reliable, certified technology by 2003.
Mr. President, can we afford to risk our national security on this
unproven APT technology for our nuclear arsenal's tritium needs by
eliminating a safe and reliable reactor technology so casually?
In closing, Mr. President, my amendment will ensure the Secretary of
Energy retains the ability to carefully review each of these options
and select the one which will best serve the tritium needs of our
nation's nuclear arsenal.
I urge my colleagues being appointed to the conference committee on
the DOD re-authorization bill, to support my amendment, which preserves
the integrity of DOE's decision-making process. We can ill afford to
decide the fate of our nation's security on the floor of Congress.
Let's allow the nation's top experts in this field to make their
decision based on the careful considerations of cost and merit
regarding both options.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, would the able gentleman from Alabama
join me in a colloquy regarding the Department of Energy's tritium
production program?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would be happy to engage the Committee
Chairman in a colloquy on the subject of tritium production.
Mr. THURMOND. I believe the Senator from Alabama has an interest in
the Department of Energy's tritium production program and I believe he
shares my strong interest in restoring a sound United States tritium
production capability to support our enduring nuclear deterrent.
Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. We must have new tritium production to
maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. The Department of Energy is
currently assessing two potential technologies to produce tritium for
defense purposes.
[[Page S7130]]
One option is to construct a linear accelerator facility and the other
is to complete the Bellefonte nuclear plant in my home state of
Alabama.
Mr. THURMOND. I understand the Senator's strong support for our
national defense. I also understand that the Senator has offered an
amendment to the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act which would
require the Department of Energy to follow applicable laws and internal
Departmental policies and procedures in selecting a permanent tritium
source.
Mr. SESSIONS. It is my belief that any conference outcome on this
issue should not limit the ability of the DOE to make a final selection
on the two alternatives. I am hopeful, of course, that the Bellefonte
plant would be favorably considered.
Mr. THURMOND. I understand the position of the Senator from Alabama.
As he knows well, I support the accelerator alternative. He also
understands well that the dynamics of the House Senate conference
preclude me from making any pre-conference agreements on conference
outcomes. However, I assure the Senator from Alabama that despite my
own interests, and my position as Chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, that I will not work personally to disadvantage the
Bellefonte alternative in the conference. With this understanding, I am
prepared to accept the Senator's amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. I agree and thank the Chairman for his cooperation and
understanding on this issue. I appreciate your consideration of this
issue and my amendment.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a position
taken by the House last month in their version of the Defense
Authorization bill. During House debate, Congressman Graham of South
Carolina and Congressman Markey of Massachusetts introduced an
amendment to ban the use of commercial nuclear reactors to produce
tritium. Tritium, as you know Mr. President, is a material essential to
the efficacy of our nuclear arsenal which, because it decays, must be
replenished over time. Tritium has not been produced in this country
since 1988 and a new source is needed to maintain our nuclear weapons
stockpile at the levels called for in the START II treaty. The question
now is where production of the needed tritium will take place.
For fifty years the United States has drawn a strong line between
commercial and military production of nuclear materials. While tritium
is produced in commercial reactors as a by-product of the fission
process, this material is not used for nuclear weapon application.
Instead, tritium for our nuclear arsenal was long produced at the
Department of Energy's Savannah River Site in South Carolina. The DOE
is now considering the use of a commercial reactor to produce weapons
grade tritium. We must not arbitrarily allow this shift in our nation's
nuclear policy.
The recent nuclear tests in India and Pakistan sent a strong signal
across the world that the efforts, particularly those of the United
States, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons have not fully
succeeded. In this light we must upgrade our efforts to halt nuclear
proliferation. Should Congress allow the commercial production of
weapons grade tritium we would take a step backwards in our efforts to
curtail proliferation. We would tell the rest of the world that
commercial reactors are a viable means to enhance a nuclear arsenal.
This is no time to send this kind of message.
The DOE's other option is to build a nuclear accelerator at the
Savannah River Site, where production of tritium for our nuclear
arsenal has traditionally taken place. Mr. President, this is the
correct policy option for our country and for our efforts to prevent
nuclear proliferation. I hope that when the Senate and the House begin
their conference negotiations on the FY99 Defense Authorization bill
the Senate will agree to the language included in the House bill by
Congressmen Graham and Markey preventing commercial production of
tritium.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by Mr. Sessions and commend his effort to bring attention to the
important, though obscure issue of tritium production. Since the
looming threat of nuclear war dissipated in the aftermath of the demise
of the Soviet Union, our strategic forces have been pushed to the
sidelines. But recent events in the Asia subcontinent remind us not
only of the danger from the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction but also of the imperative to maintain the deterrent effect
of our strategic weapons stockpile.
Tritium is a radioactive isotope that is used in every nuclear
warhead in our nation's stockpile. Like all radioactive matter, tritium
decays over time. To compensate for the loss from decay, it is
necessary to periodically replenish the level of tritium in each
weapon. Despite this constant demand, tritium has not been produced for
strategic purposes since 1988. Replenishment in the weapons stockpile
has continued, however, by recycling tritium from nuclear weapons as
they are dismantled. This is only an interim measure, and it is clear
that the U.S. will have to resume tritium production sometime soon.
In 1995, the Department of Energy decided to follow a dual-track
approach whereby the two most promising options for tritium production
would be explored. The first option is to purchase the radioactive gas
from a commercial nuclear reactor. The second alternative is to design,
construct, and test an accelerator system, which is called the
Accelerator Production of Tritium or APT. The Department of Energy was
directed by last year's National Defense Authorization Act to conduct
an interagency review of tritium production policy issues. The
Authorization Act also directed the Energy Department to determine
which of two tracks will serve as the primary source of tritium
production by the end of this year.
There are forces in Congress, however, who are determined to derail
this process. Proponents of APT are trying to prohibit the production
of tritium at a commercial reactor. This misguided attempt would leave
the Department of Energy with no choice other than using APT as the
source for tritium production. Make no mistake about it, this is a
thinly disguised attempt to mandate one particular technology that
benefits one particular state. It is unfortunate that some are willing
to put parochial interests in front of the national security imperative
to develop a cheap, safe source of tritium.
As the Secretary of Energy stated, the selection of tritium
production should be based on ``a careful and deliberate review of the
cost, technical, schedule, and policy issues associated with each
option.'' These sentiments are supported by the Administration and the
Department of Defense. I suspect that all of us who believe in fair and
honest competition would agree that Congress should not interfere with
the Department of Energy's process for selecting a tritium production
source. If proponents of the APT are successful in their efforts
however, Congress will do just that, and the decision will be based not
on the merits of either option but solely on politics.
The Congress and the taxpayer should be aware of the staggering
differences in the price tag associated with each competing technology.
The Congressional Budget Office estimate that APT will cost from $6.72
billion to construct. In addition to the initial construction cost, the
APT option will require an annual appropriation of $150 million to
operate. Furthermore, these estimates are based on preliminary
conceptual designs, and the taxpayer of course will be asked to pay for
any likely cost overruns.
On the other hand, Mr. President, the commercial reactor option would
only cost $1.8 to $2 billion. Moreover, this initial investment is
similar to a loan, so every tax dollar spent will be returned to the
Treasury. This has been certified by several independent reviews. I
would like to add that this option does not require any additional
appropriated funds because the commercial reactor owner, not the
Treasury, will pay any cost overruns.
If selected by the Department of Energy, a commercial reactor could
begin producing tritium by 2003. This is two years ahead of the
scheduled that the Departments of Energy and Defense have laid out as
necessary to maintain the nuclear stockpile at the START I level. It
uses a proven design which is currently being demonstrated. The
commercial reactor also provides the Department of Energy with the
flexibility to change tritium production
[[Page S7131]]
quantities in response to changing need without major cost
implications.
Serious concerns have been raised about the technical feasibility of
the accelerator option. While proponents of APT tout its supposed
benefits, I would like to point out that the APT does not exist. It is
still a paper concept. Also, several components that are critical to
the development of this accelerator are still in the prototype stage.
Even if the APT is developed on schedule, it would not be operational
until 2007, which is two years after the Department's target date. As a
result, the ATP option will require that the Department of Energy will
have to find an interim source of tritium until the APT is proven. Any
unforeseen delays in the development of the accelerator technology will
extend the Department's reliance on an interim source.
Mr. President, the issue before us can be boiled down to this: Should
Congress dictate the tritium production method as a political favor
regardless of technological risk and cost? I strongly believe that the
commercial reactor option should not be removed from consideration by
legislation fiat. Instead, the Senate has a responsibility to preserve
the integrity of a process that rewards merits and competition. I urge
my colleagues to support the Session's amendment and preserve the
Department of Energy's dual-track options for tritium production.
Mr. CLELAND. I rise today to discuss my grave concerns about the
policy implications if a decision to produce tritium in a commercial
nuclear reactor were to be made. My concerns are especially serious in
light of the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan last month.
The recent detonation of nuclear devices in South Asia should serve as
a wake-up call to the U.S. and the international community about the
unfinished business with respect to the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction.
Most of the international effort to slow the spread of nuclear
weapons has been focused on limiting access to plutonium and uranium.
However, less attention has been given to tritium which can increase
the capabilities of these nuclear weapons. To those unfamiliar with the
use of tritium in nuclear munitions, tritium is to a nuclear weapon
what Tabasco Sauce is to a good bowl of chili--it adds kick. The key
point is that it is the tritium which allows the use of smaller
delivery systems because it allows a smaller weapon to produce a much
greater yield. In the age of concerns about suitcase bombs and the
smuggling of weapons across borders, it is critical that we also
attempt to limit access to tritium.
It has been long-standing American policy to discourage the use of
commercial reactors to produce weapons material. Instead, the Atomic
energy Act mandated that the Atomic Energy Commission would be the
exclusive owner of production facilities related to nuclear weapons.
That authority now lies within the Department of Energy. Unfortunately,
when drafted, the Atomic Energy Act did not specifically list tritium
as a special nuclear material covered under the act. The House has
passed legislation that would insure that tritium is covered as a
special nuclear material which is only to be produced in a facility
owned by the Department of Energy. I believe such an approach is a
reasonable one given our non-proliferation objectives.
Our dwindling supply of tritium and our need to preserve the nation's
nuclear deterrent require the U.S. to develop a new tritium production
capability at this time. To that end, the U.S. is currently considering
two types of tritium production methods. Unfortunately, one of the two
technology options under consideration contrasts sharply with our
traditional policy. The use of commercial nuclear reactors raises
serious concerns about non-proliferation. The U.S. has worked too long
and too hard to stem the spread of weapons of mass destruction to
abandon the principles of the Atomic Energy Act which has served as
well over the last four decades. How can we urge the governments of
India, Pakistan, North Korea, and any other country seeking a nuclear
weapons capability not to attempt to use reactors designed for peaceful
energy production for military purposes when we are contemplating doing
a very similar thing here in America?
Now, I am certainly no expert in nuclear physics and the production
of nuclear weapons material. However, America has tremendous human
resources within the Department of Energy in the form of our
scientists, engineers, and plant workers. These Americans helped win
the Cold War. Their contributions are significant and not to be
overlooked. What is key is that their contributions are not yet done.
The Department of Energy's Savannah River Site has been where tritium
has been traditionally produced and processed. That is where America's
expertise in tritium production lies. That is where we can be assured
that our national non-proliferation objectives will never be
subordinated to commercial or other concerns. It is my view that we
should once again turn to those great workers there to get the job done
as they have proven they are capable.
I will certainly admit, proudly, to my constituency interest in
seeing that the Savannah River Site be given fair consideration.
However, there is a larger issue at stake here than the economic
interests of competing constituent interests. Prevention of the spread
of nuclear weapons and the preservation of American leadership on this
issue is in the interests of every state, of every region, and of every
American.
I do not have the expertise to determine which technology is most
viable and cost effective if the choice is between a reactor-based
option and an accelerator option. However, I do know that at this point
in history, it would be wrong to turn our backs on one of our most
effective non-proliferation policies. It is my view that we should
continue to maintain our nuclear weapons capability within DOE
facilities where we have traditionally done this work.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the tritium production issue that is the
subject of the Sessions amendment is a very important issue.
The Department of Energy must have a level playing field to make a
sound decision on a tritium production source. We should not restrict
the options available to the Department of Energy in making that
choice.
The Sessions amendment would ensure a level playing field for the
Department to make its choice. That is why I strongly support the
Sessions amendment.
Mr. President, I will work hard to ensure that the conference on the
defense authorization bill will result in a level playing field to
assure the Energy Department can make the best possible choice. That is
in our national interest.
Mr. President, Secretary of Defense William Cohen agrees that there
should be no restriction on the options being considered by the
Department of Energy on a future tritium production source.
He has sent a letter to the Armed Services Committee today that urges
the Senate not to adopt any amendment that would restrict DOE's
options. His letter concludes with the following sentence: ``Passage of
any such amendment would place the Defense Authorization bill at
risk.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary
Cohen be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The Secretary of Defense
Washington, DC, June 25, 1998.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Committee on the Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express the opinion of
the Department of Defense on proposed amendments to the
Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization bill that prohibit
commercial light water reactors from producing tritium for
military purposes.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is pursuing a dual-track
program to produce tritium. One method is to use a commercial
light water reactor (CLWR) to irradiate rods from which
tritium could be extracted at a DOE facility--in effect,
buying irradiation services. The other approach is to build
an accelerator to produce tritium (APT). DOE will decide on a
primary method by the end of this calendar year. The proposed
amendments would effectively foreclose the CLWR option.
DoD opposes the amendments for three reasons. First, if the
amendments become law, DOE would require an immediate
additional investment of nearly $250M to accelerate
development of APT. The long term impacts of the amendments
are far more significant. The life cycle cost of APT could be
[[Page S7132]]
as high as $8.8B. The life cycle cost of the CLWR program
could be as low as $1.2B. Thus, the amendments could mandate
an unfunded liability of up to $7.6B. Second, the amendments
would likely increase the cost of the DOE stockpile
stewardship program (SSP). Finally, this amendment appears to
be predicated on an assumption that the use of commercial
reactors for tritium production is inconsistent with the US
nonproliferation policy. It is not. The DOE will forward
shortly a completed interagency report that concludes that
the nonproliferation policy issues associated with the use of
a commercial light water reactor are manageable and that the
DOE should continue to pursue the reactor option as a viable
source for future tritium production. The DoD fully endorses
this position.
In conclusion, DOE has a dual-track program to develop an
assured supply of tritium. Until DOE reaches its decision
later this year, the wisest choice is to leave our options
open. Therefore, I urge you to oppose the amendments that
would prohibit CLWR from being considered as an option.
Passage of any such amendment would place the Defense
Authorization bill at risk.
Respectfully,
William Cohen,
Secretary of Defense.
amendment no. 2909 as modified
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to provide new incentives
for retention of personnel for critical military specialties)
At the end of subtitle B of title VI, add the following:
SEC. 620. RETENTION INCENTIVES INITIATIVE FOR CRITICALLY
SHORT MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALTIES.
(a) Requirement for New Incentives.--The Secretary of
Defense shall establish and provide for members of the Armed
Forces qualified in critically short military occupational
specialties a series of new incentives that the Secretary
considers potentially effective for increasing the rates at
which those members are retained in the Armed Forces for
service in such specialties.
(b) Critically Short Military Occupational Specialties.--
For the purposes of this section, a military occupational
specialty is a critically short military occupational
specialty for an armed force if the number of members
retained in that armed force in fiscal year 1998 for service
in that specialty is less than 50 percent of the number of
members of that armed force that were projected to be
retained in that armed force for service in the specialty by
the Secretary of the military department concerned as of
October 1, 1997.
(c) Incentives.--It is the sense of Congress that, among
the new incentives established and provided under this
section, the Secretary of Defense should include the
following incentives:
(1) Family support and leave allowances.
(2) Increased special reenlistment or retention bonuses.
(3) Repayment of educational loans.
(4) Priority of selection for assignment to preferred
permanent duty station or for extension at permanent duty
station.
(5) Modified leave policies.
(6) Special consideration for Government housing or
additional housing allowances.
(d) Relationship to Other Incentives.--Incentives provided
under this section are in addition to any special pay or
other benefit that is authorized under any other provision of
law.
(e) Reports.--(1) Not later than December 1, 1998, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report that identifies, for each of the
Armed Forces, the critically short military occupational
specialties to which incentives under this section are to
apply.
(2) Not later than April 15, 1999, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report
that specifies, for each of the Armed Forces, the incentives
that are to be provided under this section.
amendment no. 2923 as modified
(Purpose: To require the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs to revise the TRICARE policy manual to clarify that
rehabilitative services are available to a patient for a head injury
under certain circumstances)
At the end of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 708. ACCESSABILITY TO CARE UNDER TRICARE.
(a) Rehabilitation Services for Head Injuries.--The
Secretary of Defense shall revise the TRICARE policy manual
to clarify that rehabilitative services are available to a
patient for a head injury when the treating physician
certifies that such services would be beneficial for the
patient and there is potential for the patient to recover
from the injury.
(b) Review of Adequacy of Provider Network.--The Secretary
of Defense shall review the administration of the TRICARE
Prime health plans to determine whether, for the region
covered by each such plan, there is a sufficient number,
distribution, and variety of qualified participating health
care providers to ensure that all covered health care
services, including specialty services, are available and
accessible in a timely manner to all persons covered by the
plan. If the Secretary determines during the review that, in
the region, there is an inadequate network of providers to
provide the covered benefits in proximity to the permanent
duty stations of covered members of the uniformed services in
the region, or in proximity to the residences of other
persons covered by the plan in the region, the Secretary
shall take such actions as are necessary to ensure that the
TRICARE Prime plan network of providers in the region is
adequate to provide for all covered benefits to be available
and accessible in a timely manner to all persons covered by
the plan.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President. I rise today to offer an amendment that
seeks to address some of the inadequacies in the current Armed
Services' health care system. I know many of my colleagues will be
aware of these inadequacies from their constituents complaints about
this system which, at times seems more like a cost cutting operation
than the health care system for those brave enough to put their lives
on the line for their country.
The inadequacies addressed by my amendment were brought to my
attention recently through the tragic case of Stephanie Davito, the 14
year old daughter of a nuclear submarine commander who currently lies
in a coma at Sentara General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. This little
girl's family has been fighting to get her the care that she needs
through the TRICARE PRIME health care system and they have met time and
time again with a wall of bureaucracy. At this time of extreme stress
and anguish, Commander Davito and his wife Kristine have been forced to
literally plead for adequate health care for their daughter. No-one
should be forced to plead for covered benefits, least of all our Armed
Services personnel and their families.
Commander Davito, who is a United States Naval Officer from Spring
Valley in Illinois, had been the Executive Officer on board the nuclear
powered attack submarine U.S.S. Hyman G. Rickover stationed in Norfolk,
Virginia. In March, he was transferred to STRATCOM in Nebraska. His
family remained in Norfolk to finish out the school year. On May 15th,
tragedy struck as Commander and Mrs. Davito's young daughter was hit by
a car on her way home from school. She has been in a coma ever since.
STRATCOM, as Commander Davito explained in his recent letter to me, was
wonderful and transferred him temporarily to Commander Submarine Force
Atlantic in Norfolk, so that he could be with his daughter.
However, Commander Davito's experience with TRICARE has been a
nightmare. Even though Stephanie's neurologist, Dr. Robert Rashti,
believes that Stephanie has a very good chance for recovery, a TRICARE
bureaucrat tried to argue that because Stephanie was not ``an active
participant'' in her rehabilitation, they would not have to cover her
treatment. This is an absolutely outrageous claim. Such a view
obviously affects anyone covered by TRICARE that is unfortunate enough
to suffer a coma. To suggest that comatose patients do not deserve
treatment is, to me a completely abhorrent suggestion.
The TRICARE policy manual does in fact stipulate that Rehabilitation
is a covered service, though must of the manual reads like alphabet
soup with respect to clarity. Clearly, the manual needs to be made more
explicit, as my amendment suggests, so that no utilization clerk within
the TRICARE system will ever again be confused.
TRICARE has on numerous occasions tried to encourage the Davitos to
put Stephanie in custodial care which, by the way, they do not cover.
There, she would not get the Rehabilitation that she needs.
The Davitos contacted Senator Warner, Illinois State Representative
Frank Mautino, and my office to see if we could help them. I want to
take this opportunity to thank Senator Warner on their behalf for all
his staffs' hard work on this issue. In particular, I believe that Mr.
Sanford in his district office has been extremely helpful to the
Davitos. In spite of all our offices' repeated intervention on behalf
of the Davitos, Stephanie's care is still not resolved and we are still
being met with a wall a bureaucracy from the TRICARE system. Secretary
Dalton has personally intervened and I want to sincerely thank him for
that. The Navy has been deeply involved in trying to resolve this but
they too have met with incredible resistance from TRICARE West with
respect to TRICARE committing to treating Stephanie adequately. These
are not the wars that the Armed Services should have to fight.
[[Page S7133]]
Stephanie's doctor believes that she has a good chance for recovery,
if TRICARE would only provide her with the Rehabilitation that she
needs. Dr. Rashti wrote on June 15th, and I am quoting from his letter
to Senator Warner, ``at the time of Stephanie's admission, she was in
critical condition due to severe brain swelling from contusions and a
small hematoma in the right frontal region of the head. After a stormy
course lasting two weeks, her brain swelling began to resolve and
Stephanie began to show signs of improvement. . . . Prognostically, her
diagnostic studies in conjunction with her evolving clinical course,
suggests that this young lady has significant potential for functional
recovery. While there is no guarantee, this medical impression is based
on over 26 years of neurosurgical experience, including experience at
the Shock Trauma Unit in Maryland and the Multiple Trauma Unit for
twenty years here in Norfolk.'' Later in this letter, Dr. Rashti stated
very clearly ``From a medical standpoint, it is not felt appropriate
that she go to a custodial care facility.'' Another doctor, Dr. Kip
Burkman was in full agreement with Dr. Rashti's recommendation. Neither
medical opinions seemed to sway the administrators of the TRICARE West
program who refused to allow for Stephanie's transfer to the
Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska which is near her family's
home and which can provide Rehabilitation services that she needs.
Can any of us imagine how we would feel if one of our children lay as
Stephanie does in a coma, where the doctors said she would get better
if only she has access to care, but the cost cutting plan
administrators tried to use every ambiguity in the policy manual to
deny care? The pain and suffering that Stephanie's parents must be
going through must be incredible. Is this how we treat the families of
a person like Commander Davito who has served his country for 16 years
and who has time and time again put his life at risk for the good of
his country? Is this the kind of health care system that we reward our
Armed Services with?
Further confounding this problem is the issue of whether the network
of providers in some regions of the country are adequate. Part of the
problem that the Davito's are experiencing is due to the absence of a
Rehabilitation facility near the STRATCOM base that is affiliated with
the TRICARE West network. The Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha which is
close to the STRATCOM base, after TRICARE initially suggested that
Stephanie could be transferred there, was found not to be within the
TRICARE West network which was probably part of the reason that TRICARE
West suddenly became reluctant to allow her to be transferred there.
However, TRICARE West does not have any facilities within their network
near the base that are capable of providing Stephanie with the
Rehabilitation recommended by her doctors. TRICARE suggested again that
she be placed in a nursing home in Omaha or a nursing home in Lincoln
Nebraska which is over 80 miles from the base, or finally they offered
a place in a hospital in Lincoln, again over 80 miles from Stephanie's
parents.
What would it mean if TRICARE was successful in denying Stephanie
access to the care that she needed? Well, it would likely mean that
when she recovers from her coma, she will not be able to walk because
she will have been denied the physical therapy necessary to prevent
muscle atrophy. A wide variety of other completely avoidable
complications might also result from the denial of rehabilitation.
This little girl deserves a chance to get better. After much
prodding, TRICARE is now saying that maybe she could have one month of
Rehabilitation care at the Immanuel Hospital near the STRATCOM base.
However, the time-frame for recovery from these injuries is 4-6 months
at a minimum. Stephanie's doctors are suggesting that she may need
between 6 and 12 months of care. As Dr. Rashti pointed out in his most
recent letter, ``Progress in any rehabilitation program is usually not
as rapid as family or insurance companies would like but that is the
nature of recovering brain injury patients. Their course is frequently
characterized by rapid spurts of improvement interspersed with plateau
periods lasting weeks before the next level of improvement begin.'' Dr.
Rashti suggested that Stephanie would likely need 4 to 6 months of
aggressive rehabilitation, with a maximum rehab benefit of about a
year. I completely agree with Dr. Rashti when he says ``This child is
14 years old and deserves every chance to reach her maximum
potential''.
My staff has contacted NIH to inquire of their staff at the National
Institute of Neurological Disease, as to their opinion for the normal
time-frame for recovery from such injuries. They have also indicated
that 6 months to 1 year seems appropriate.
Everyone except the insurance company seems to be in agreement as to
the care that Stephanie needs. I hope that we can make some progress
during consideration of the Department of Defense's Reauthorization
bill to see that this issue gets resolved not only for Stephanie but
also for all the other Americans covered by the TRICARE system.
My amendment is very simple. It has two parts. The first part directs
the Secretary of Defense to revise the TRICARE policy manual to make it
perfectly clear that Rehabilitative services are available to a patient
suffering from a head injury when the treating physician certifies that
such services would be beneficial for that patient and there is
potential for recovery. This would move medical decisions concerning
treatment back where they belong into the hands of physicians and out
of the hands of HMO bureaucrats that may be more concerned with cost
cutting than care giving.
The second part of my amendment would direct the Secretary of Defense
to evaluate the adequacy of each TRICARE region's network of providers.
Each region should have sufficient number, distribution and variety of
qualified health care providers and facilities to provide all the
covered services. If a region is found to have an inadequate network of
providers for some covered services, then the Secretary would be
requested to take remedial action to improve the adequacy of the
networks. This part of my amendment is very important to those in the
military who are frequently transferred from station to station. In
some areas, where managed care has been around for a long time, the
networks may be good and patients may access all the care that they
need and are entitled to. However, in some parts of the country, the
networks are not sufficient and someone that enrolled in TRICARE PRIME
while in California or Oregon suddenly finds that their new network is
completely inadequate. Should our Armed Services personnel be force to
swap between TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Standard depending on where they
are currently stationed? Will they only find out when they can't get
the care that they need that their region has an inadequate network of
providers? Surely, we can provide a getter standard of care to the men
and women and their families who patriotically serve our country.
After 4 years in operation, I believe it is time to evaluate the
TRICARE system and to see if there are regional gaps in service.
Obviously, if it turns out that some regions do not provide adequately
for our military's the health care needs, then this should be remedied.
However, if we don't ask for this evaluation, it may take much longer
to correct problems that may exist.
There are those that might argue that providing adequate health care
coverage will cost us more. Actually, having inadequate networks may
also be extremely costly because when a person is denied care, it may
take many navy personnel working in the appeals process to secure them
the necessary health care. It may also mean that the Plan has to
contract temporarily with an out of network provider. This is not a
very efficient way of doing business. As the saving goes, ``You should
fix the roof while the sun is shining'', we should not leave it to
tragedies like Stephanies to point out to us when our health care
system for the Armed Services is deficient.
I believe that this amendment will take a small step forward to
making sure that the Armed Services have access to a decent health care
system and I hope that my colleagues will support my amendment.
amendment no. 2976 as modified
(Purpose: Relating to Radio Free Asia)
Add at the end the following new title:
[[Page S7134]]
TITLE ____--RADIO FREE ASIA
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Radio Free Asia Act of
1998''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Government of the People's Republic of China
systematically controls the flow of information to the
Chinese people.
(2) The Government of the People's Republic of China
demonstrated that maintaining its monopoly on political power
is a higher priority than economic development by announcing
in January 1996 that its official news agency Xinhua, will
supervise wire services selling economic information,
including Dow Jones-Telerate, Bloomberg, and Reuters
Business, and in announcing in February 1996 the ``Interim
Internet Management Rules'', which have the effect of
censoring computer networks.
(3) Under the May 30, 1997, order of Premier Li Peng, all
organizations that engage in business activities related to
international computer networking must now apply for a
license, increasing still further government control over
access to the Internet.
(4) Both Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America, as a
surrogate for a free press in the People's Republic of China,
provide an invaluable source of uncensored information to the
Chinese people, including objective and authoritative news of
in-country and regional events, as well as accurate news
about the United States and its policies.
Enhanced broadcasting service to China and Tibet can
efficiently be established through a combination of Radio
Free Asia and Voice of America programming.
(6) Radio Free Asia and Voice of America, in working toward
continuously broadcasting to the People's Republic of China
in multiple languages, have the capability to establish 24-
hour-a-day Mandarin broadcasting to that nation by staggering
the hours of Radio Free Asia an Voice of America.
(7) Simultaneous broadcastings on Voice of America radio
and Worldnet television 7 days a week in Mandarin are also
important and needed capabilities.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR INCREASED FUNDING
FOR RADIO FREE ASIA AND VOICE OF AMERICA
BROADCASTING TO CHINA.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations for Radio Free Asia.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for ``Radio Free Asia'' $30,000,000 for
fiscal year 1998 and $22,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.
(2) Limitations.--
Of the funds under paragraph (1) authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 1998, $8,000,000 is authorized
to be appropriated for one-time capital costs.
(3) Sense of Congress
It is the Sense of Congress that of the funds under
paragraph (1), a significant amount shall be directed towards
broadcasting to China and Tibet in the appropriate languages
and dialects.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations for International
Broadcasting To China.--In addition to such sums as are
otherwise authorized to be appropriated for ``International
Broadcasting Activities'' for fiscal years 1998 and 1999,
there are authorized to be appropriated for ``International
Broadcasting Activities'' $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and
$3,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, which shall be available
only or enhanced Voice of America broadcasting to China.
Of the funds authorized under this subsection, $100,000 is
authorized to be appropriated for each of the fiscal years
1998 and 1999 for additional personnel to staff Hmong
language broadcasting.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations for Radio
Construction.--In addition to such sums as are otherwise
authorized to be appropriated for ``Radio Construction'' or
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, there are authorized to be
appropriated for ``Radio Construction'' $10,000,000 for
fiscal year 1998 and $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, which
shall be available only for construction in support of
enhanced broadcasting to China, including the timely
augmentation of transmitters at Tinian, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands.
SEC. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
(a) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall prepare
and submit to the appropriate congressional committees an
assessment of the Board's efforts to increase broadcasting by
Radio Free Asia and Voice of America China and Tibet. This
report shall include an analysis of Chinese government
control of the media, the ability of independent journalists
and news organizations to operate in China, and the results
of any research conducted to quantify listenership.
(b) For the purposes of this section, appropriate
congressional committees are defined as the Senate Committees
on Foreign Relations and Appropriations and the House
Committees on International Relations and Appropriations.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I support the amendment by the Senator from
Arkansas regarding Radio Free Asia. The amendment is virtually
identical to the text of H.R. 2232 as reported by the Committee on
Foreign Relations on May 19.
As the author of the legislation which created Radio Free Asia (RFA)
in 1994, I strongly support its efforts to broadcast truth and
information to the people living under dictatorial rule in China and
elsewhere in Asia.
RFA began broadcasts in 1996 on a shoestring budget of roughly $10
million a year. This bill authorizes, in Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, a
significant increase in funding for Radio Free Asia, and provides
additional funds for the transmission capability needed to broadcast
the programming. It is consistent with the funding levels in S. 903,
the State Department authorization bill approved by the Senate over a
year ago.
Modeled on Radio Free Europe, this organization was conceived in
order to broadcast news and information about internal events in China
and the other non-democratic states of East Asia. Radio Free Asia thus
acts as a ``surrogate'' service, acting as a local media--making
available information to the Chinese people which is otherwise
unavailable because of the tight control that the dictatorship in
Beijing retains on the media in China. As the State Department's Annual
Human Rights report noted, the Chinese government and the Communist
Party ``continue to control tightly print and broadcast media and use
them to propagate the current ideological line.''
Radio Free Asia is designed to overcome these restrictions on press
freedom. The leaders of the new democracies in Eastern Europe have all
testified to the importance of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty
during the Cold War. No tribute has been more eloquent than that of
Lech Walesa, former President of Poland, who said ``How fortunate that
the Iron Curtain could not be raised so high as to block radio
transmission. The truth seeped in, unseen by border guards . . . .
between the barbed wire. It provided impossible to stop, impossible to
silence.''
Radio Free Asia is not, as some cynics have asserted, a propaganda
service. Although funding by the U.S. government, it is a private
corporation. Its funding is provided by the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, a government entity which has considerable autonomy in its
role of supervising U.S. government-sponsored broadcasting.
In short, Radio Free Asia is a legitimate news organization, staffed
by legitimate journalists. Its President is Richard Richter, a former
network news executive, who has insisted on the highest journalistic
standards. The Vice-President for Programming, Daniel Southerland, is
also an experience reporter who formerly served as the Beijing bureau
chief for the Washington Post. In the short time that Radio Free Asia
has been on the air, they have assembled a very talented and dedicated
staff which is committed to honest journalism.
The exiling of prominent dissidents by the Beijing government has
been a boon to Radio Free Asia. Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan, both
recently exiled by China, have signed on to provide regular commentary.
Radio Free Asia thus provides a platform for voices of democracy--a
platform that is, unfortunately, unavailable to these men inside China.
China and the other nations to which RFA broadcasts have not been
thrilled with the honor. Since last year, the Chinese have attempted to
jam Radio Free Asia broadcasts. And this week, the Beijing government
rescinded visas it had previously issued for three RFA reporters who
had sought to accompany President Clinton on his trip to China.
The decision by China to rescind the visas is deeply regrettable. Had
it admitted the journalists, the Chinese government would have provided
a manifest demonstration that it had turned a corner--that it is
willing to open up its system to greater pluralism and scrutiny. China
wants to be a great power. But Great Powers do not obstruct the flow of
information into and out of the country. The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to ``seek, receive
and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.'' If China is to be a modern nation, it should adhere to
this universal standard.
There is, however, some good news lurking in the decision of the
Chinese government to block the visas for RFA reporters: China must be
worried about the effect of RFA's broadcasts. In other words, the
broadcasts are getting
[[Page S7135]]
through--despite the efforts to jam it--and people are listening.
Information is subversive of tyranny, as are western investment and
exchanges, and the Communist government in China apparently recognizes
that Radio Free Asia threatened its attempts to control news and
information.
Mr. President, Radio Free Asia is an important instrument to advance
U.S. policy of promoting democratic values in China and elsewhere in
Asia. This amendment is a modest, but important, step to ensure that it
has the tools to do the job.
AMENDMENT NO. 3017
(Purpose: To authorize $13,584,000 for the construction of a Combined
Support Maintenance Shop for the Army National Guard at Camp Guernsey,
Wyoming. Other Procurement Army is reduced $13,584,000 for Land
Warrior)
On page 320, line 25, strike out ``$95,395,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``$108,979,000''.
On page 14, line 6, reduce subparagraph (5) by $13,584,000.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 3018
(Purpose: To increase by $10,000,000 the total amount authorized to be
appropriated for research and development relating to Persian Gulf
illnesses, and to offset the increase by reducing the amount under
title II for the Army Commercial Operations and Support Savings Program
by $10,000,000)
At the end of subtitle B of title II, add the following:
SEC. 219. PERSIAN GULF ILLNESSES.
(a) Additional Amount for Persian Gulf Illnesses.--The
total amount authorized to be appropriated under this title
for research and development relating to Persian Gulf
illnesses is the total amount authorized to be appropriated
for such purpose under the other provisions of this title
plus $10,000,000.
(b) Reduced Amount for Army Commercial Operations and
Support Savings Program.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated under section 201(1), $23,600,000 shall be
available for the Army Commercial Operations and Support
Savings Program.
Mr. HARKIN. I rise to offer an amendment important to Persian Gulf
War veterans. My amendment increases Department of Defense spending on
research to determine the causes and possible treatments of those
suffering from Gulf War illnesses by $10 million. It is my
understanding that the amendment has been accepted by the bill managers
on both sides.
While the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, the physical and
psychological ordeal for many of the nearly 700,000 troops who served
our country in Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield has not ended.
It's been seven years since our troops were winning the war in the
Gulf. Unfortunately, they continue to suffer due to their deployment.
Many of our troops returned from the Persian Gulf suffering from a
variety of symptoms that have been difficult to trace to a single
source or substance. Our veterans have experienced a combination of
symptoms in varying degrees of seriousness, including: fatigue, skin
rash, muscle and joint pain, headache, loss of memory, shortness of
breath, and gastrointestinal and respiratory problems. Unfortunately,
the initial response from the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans
Affairs was to express skepticism about veterans' and their loved ones
who dealt with the very real affects of their service in the Gulf.
I vividly remember a series of roundtable discussions I held with
veterans across Iowa after being contacted by several families of Gulf
War veterans stricken with undiagnosed illnesses. And these folks
weren't just sick. They were tired. They were tired of getting the
runaround from the government they defended. There were tired of people
who refused to listen. . . or told them it was in their head . . . or
that it had nothing to do with their service in the Gulf.
Their stories put a human face on the results of a study I requested
through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The results add
to the increasing volume of evidence that what these veterans were
experiencing was indeed very real. More than one in three Gulf War
veterans reported one or more significant medical problems. Fifteen
percent reported two or more significant medical conditions. These Iowa
veterans also reported significantly greater problems with quality of
life issues than others on active duty at the time but not deployed in
the Gulf. For example, Persian Gulf veterans had lower scores on
measures of vitality, physical and mental health, ability to work, and
increased levels of emotional problems and bodily pain.
In addition, over 80 percent of the Gulf War veterans in the CDC
study reported having been exposed to at least one potentially
hazardous material during their Persian Gulf Deployment. A recent
General Accounting Office report provided an alarming laundry list of
such hazards including: ``compounds used to decontaminate equipment and
protect it against chemical agents, fuel used as a sand suppressant in
and around encampments, fuel used to burn human waste, fuel in shower
water, leaded vehicle exhaust used to dry sleeping bags, depleted
uranium, parasites, pesticides, multiple vaccines used to protect
against chemical warfare agents, and smoke from oil-well fires.''
To this rather exhaustive list, we can also add exposure to nerve
gas. The DOD and CIA have admitted that as many as 100,000 or more . .
. that's 1 in 7 troops deployed in the Gulf . . . may have been exposed
to chemical agents released into the atmosphere when U.S. troops
destroyed an Iraqi weapons bunker. A Presidential Advisory Committee
also found credible evidence of exposure to chemical agents in a second
incident when troops crossed Iraqi front lines on the first day of the
ground war. Chemical weapons specialists in these units said they
detected poison gas. Unfortunately, these detections were initially
neither acknowledged nor pursued by the Pentagon.
That being said, the Pentagon and others have been more forthcoming
recently with relevant information, documents, and research. But more
needs to be done. I am pleased that the President, acting based on
legislation, I cosponsored, extended the time veterans will have to
file claims with the government for illnesses related to their service
in the Gulf. Previously, they had to show their illness surfaced within
two years of their service. Now, they have until the end of 2001. This
is a great victory for our veterans. Gulf War illnesses do not surface
on a time line convenient to the rules of bureaucrats. This extension
will help us meet our responsibility to take care of these soldiers.
But, more still needs to be done.
There is still substantial mystery and confusion surrounding the
symptoms and health problems experienced by Gulf War veterans. While
many veterans have been diagnosed with a recognizable disease, I am
concerned about those who have no explanation, no label, no treatment
for their suffering. More needs to be done to help these Americans.
For example, the Presidential Advisory Committee has suggested
research in three new areas to help close the gaps in what we know
about Gulf War illnesses. They suggest research on the long-term health
effects of low-level exposures to chemical warfare agents, the combined
effects of medical injections meant to combat chemical warfare with
other Gulf War risk factors, and on the body's physical response to
stress. It is also imperative to ensure that longitudinal studies and
mortality studies are funded since some health effects, such as cancer,
may not appear for several years after the end of the Gulf War.
Although there may be no single Gulf-War related disease so to speak,
it is widely acknowledged that the multiple illnesses and symptoms
experienced by Gulf War veterans are connected to their service during
the war. Therefore, we must not forget on our solemn obligation to
those who willingly served their country and put their lives in harm's
away.
To that end, I offer this amendment to increase research into the
illnesses experienced by Persian Gulf veterans by $10 million. In the
committee version of the bill, $19 million is included. Therefore, my
amendment would increase that amount to $29 million, providing many
more opportunities for the Pentagon to study that many more possible
causes and cures. The funds would support much more research, including
the evaluation and treatment of a host of nuero-immunological
disorders, as well as possible connections to Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyaglia.
Our veterans are not asking for much. They want answers. They wan the
truth. Our veterans answered our nations's call in war, and now we must
[[Page S7136]]
answer theirs. My amendment to increase funding for research into Gulf
War illnesses is one step in helping find these answers. Should our
priorities include our Gulf War veterans? I believe the choice is self
evident and absolutely clear.
amendment no. 3019
(Purpose: To reauthorize a land conveyance of the Army Reserve Center,
Youngstown, Ohio)
On page 342, below line 22, add the following:
SEC. 2827. REAUTHORIZATION OF LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY RESERVE
CENTER, YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the City of Youngstown,
Ohio (in this section referred to as the ``City''), all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of excess real property, including improvements
thereon, that is located at 399 Miller Street in Youngstown,
Ohio, and contains the Kefurt Army Reserve Center.
(b) Condition of Conveyance.--The conveyance authorized
under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that
the City retain the conveyed property for purposes of
activities relating to public schools in Youngstown, Ohio.
(c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the City.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
(e) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--Section 2861 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(division B of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 573) is
repealed.
____
amendment no. 3020
(Purpose: Relating to Lyme disease)
On page 157, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
SEC. 708. LYME DISEASE.
Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by this Act
for Defense Health Programs, $3,000,000 shall be available
for research and surveillance activities relating to Lyme
disease and other tick-borne diseases.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment, along
with Senators Lieberman, Chafee, Reed of Rhode Island and Lautenberg,
to expand DoD's research into preventing and treating Lyme Disease and
other tick-borne illnesses.
Almost everyone in my state, including myself, has seen the
devastating impact the Lyme Disease, in particular, can have on its
victims.
Most of you know that Lyme Disease has particular meaning for
residents of Connecticut. While it wasn't discovered in my state, it
did achieve prominence there in the early 1980s, and, in fact, is named
after the town of Lyme, Connecticut.
Like many northeastern states, CT experiences more than its share of
the anguish that this condition inflicts--my constituents face a Lyme
Disease rate that is 10 times the national average.
The damage imposed by Lyme Disease on individuals and on families is
heartbreaking. Health problems experienced by those infected can
include facial paralysis, joint swelling, loss of coordination,
irregular heart-beat, liver malfunction, depression, and memory loss.
Unfortunately, Lyme Disease mimics other health conditions and
patients must often visit multiple doctors before they're properly
diagnosed. The result is prolonged pain and suffering, unnecessary
tests, and costly treatments.
Long term treatment expenses can exceed $100,000 per person--a
phenomenal cost to society. But an even greater price is paid by the
victims and their families. We can put no price tag on the emotional
costs associated with this disease.
Tragically, the number of Lyme Disease cases reported to the CDC has
sky-rocketed--from 500 cases in 1982 to 16,000 cases in 1996. And these
cases only represent the tip of the iceberg. Several new reports have
found that the actual incidence of the disease may be ten times greater
than current figures suggest. And due to the warm, wet winter caused by
El Nino, infection rates are expected to reach record levels in the
near future.
The growing number of cases has led the Department of Defense to
recognize that Lyme Disease and other tick-borne illnesses pose a
potentially serious health threat to our troops, civilian employees,
and residents at military installations all over the world--and thus a
threat to our military readiness. Indeed, hundreds of troops have
already been infected. And infection rates among enlistees are expected
to rise along with those in the civilian population. And each time a
soldier contracts Lyme Disease, he or she contracts a potentially
debilitating illness that could compromise the overall readiness of our
armed forces.
While recently approved vaccines offer hope for significantly
reducing the number of Lyme Disease cases in the long-term, we can't
let down our guard.
These vaccines aren't yet 100% effective and aren't approved at all
for children or adolescents. Furthermore, the vaccines don't protect
against other rapidly emerging tick-borne diseases. And, of course,
these vaccines do nothing to help individuals who are already infected.
To protect our troops, DoD must increase its surveillance of these
diseases, improve its ability to diagnose and treat tick-borne
illnesses, and expand its research into new options to prevent the
spread of Lyme Disease. This amendment would direct the Defense
Department to provide $3 million to put toward these goals.
This sum would come out of existing Defense Department funds for
medical research--funds which total some $250 million. The amendment
leaves to the discretion of the Secretary how to best allocate such
funds to as to make this necessary commitment to research.
I truly look forward to the day when Lyme Disease no longer plagues
our citizens and troops. It's time that we take Lyme Disease seriously
and establish a concrete commitment to fighting this devastating
disease.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
AMENDMENT NO. 3021
(Purpose: To make available, with an offset, $10,000,000 for the DoD/VA
Cooperative Research Program)
On page 41, below line 23, add the following:
SEC. 219. DOD/VA COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM.
(a) Availability of Funds.--(1) The amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 201(4) is hereby increased by
$10,000,000.
(2) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section
201(4), as increased by paragraph (1), $10,000,000 shall be
available for the DoD/VA Cooperative Research Program.
(b) Offset.--(1) The amount authorized to be appropriated
by section 201(2) is hereby decreased by $10,000,000.
(2) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section
201(2), as decreased by paragraph (1), not more than
$18,500,000 shall be available for the Commercial Operations
and Support Savings Program.
(c) Executive Agent.--The Secretary of Defense, acting
through the Army Medical Research and Materiel Command and
the Naval Operational Medicine Institute, shall be the
executive agent for the utilization of the funds made
available by subsection (a).
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased that this amendment,
which authorizes $10 million for the DOD/VA Cooperative Research
Program, has been accepted. This program is a valuable, mutually
beneficial association between the Department of Defense and the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and funds health-related research
specifically designed to benefit both active duty military personnel
and veterans. In fact, fostering this collaborative relationship was
the original intent of the DOD appropriation, back when this program
began in 1987. It has been funded every year since then.
The DOD/VA Cooperative Research Program provides an excellent example
of interagency cooperation to achieve a common goal. First of all, the
VA and DOD jointly designate representatives to oversee the entire
process. Before any money is spent, these representatives identify
several specific research topics of interest to both agencies. The
Departments, working together, then decide the priorities of the
research areas and the appropriate funding levels. Research proposals
that are received in response to an announcement of the program are
reviewed by external experts, to preserve the integrity and credibility
of the research. The result is a program which provides a strong,
direct link between DOD and VA investigators to pursue high quality
research of mutual interest.
[[Page S7137]]
I am cosponsoring this amendment with Senator Harkin and Senator
Durbin who also recognize the tremendous benefits that can be gained
from continuing this joint research effort. A collaborative approach
like this one allows investigators to follow the natural course of
disease or injury from the time of onset during active duty, and
afterwards, in the veteran population.
In FY 1998, DOD and VA spent the funds provided for this program on
studies of combat casualty care including bone healing and wound
repair, and mechanisms of emerging pathogens. These kinds of studies
are personally important to me, because in my own state of West
Virginia, we have the highest per capita population of veterans, many
of whom received grievous injuries during combat. This program is
funding research on limb regeneration and recovery from burn wounds at
VA medical centers that include West Virginia, and offers hope for a
better future for combat-wounded soldiers.
Last year's program also included the development of new clinical
research areas on treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and
prostate diseases, including prostate cancer. As the Ranking Member of
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have witnessed the devastating
effects of PTSD on the lives of former military personnel, and I am
enormously encouraged by research which may prevent the onset of PTSD.
Let me stress that this amendment does not specify research areas for
focus. That decision rightly belongs with the Departments, because of
the collaborative nature of the joint program. They have expressed
interest in continuing research in the areas I just mentioned,
expanding the studies of emerging pathogens to include host defenses.
In addition to these ongoing areas of research, two new research
initiatives have been jointly agreed to by both Departments. The first
will focus on exercise physiology and combat readiness, while the
second addresses traumatic brain and spinal cord injury.
I am also pleased to note that the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee
has included report language recommending that VA and DOD develop a new
cooperative research program on alcoholism. Rates of alcohol abuse are
significantly higher in the military than among civilians. These
patterns of heavy drinking persist in the veteran population, such that
alcoholism is one of the most common illnesses found among hospitalized
veterans.
As the nature of war changes, the modern military must cope with
threats that include environmental hazards and possible biological or
chemical warfare, as well as the more traditional hazards of combat.
Research is needed to ensure that we are ready to meet these new risks.
We must also remember to care for our soldiers after they have suffered
the ravages of war, whatever the wounds. We need additional research to
find effective ways to help them have healthy and happy lives after
service, to repay them for the sacrifices that they make for all of us.
amendment no. 3022
(Purpose: Relating to activities of the contractor-operated facilities
of the Department of Energy)
On page 397, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 3137. ACTIVITIES OF THE CONTRACTOR-OPERATED FACILITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.
(a) Research and Activities on Behalf of Non-Department
Persons and Entities.--(1) The Secretary of Energy may
conduct research and other activities referred to in
paragraph (2) through contractor-operated facilities of the
Department of Energy on behalf of other departments and
agencies of the Government, agencies of State and local
governments, and private persons and entities.
(2) The research and other activities that may be conducted
under paragraph (1) are those which the Secretary is
authorized to conduct by law, and include, but are not
limited to, research and activities authorized under the
following:
(A) Section 33 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2053).
(B) Section 107 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
(42 U.S.C. 5817).
(C) The Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.).
(b) Charges.--(1) The Secretary shall impose on the
department, agency, or person or entity for whom research and
other activities are carried out under subsection (a) a
charge for such research and activities equal to not more
than the full cost incurred by the contractor concerned in
carrying out such research and activities, which cost shall
include--
(A) the direct cost incurred by the contractor in carrying
out such research and activities; and
(B) the overhead cost including site-wide indirect costs
associated with such research and activities.
(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall
also impose on the department, agency, or person or entity
concerned a Federal administrative charge (which includes any
depreciation and imputed interest charges) in an amount not
to exceed 3 percent of the full cost incurred by the
contractor concerned in carrying out the research and
activities concerned.
(B) The Secretary may waive the imposition of the Federal
administrative charge required by subparagraph (A) in the
case of research and other activities conducted on behalf of
small business concerns, institutions of higher education,
non-profit entities, and State and local governments.
(3) Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall terminate any waiver of charges
under section 33 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2053) that were made before such date, unless the Secretary
determines that such waiver should be continued.
(c) Pilot Program of Reduced Facility Overhead Charges.--
(1) The Secretary may, with the cooperation of participating
contractors of the contractor-operated facilities of the
Department, carry out a pilot program under which the
Secretary and such contractors reduce the facility overhead
charges imposed under this section for research and other
activities conducted under this section.
(2) The Secretary shall carry out the pilot program at
contractor-operated facilities selected by the Secretary in
consultation with the contractors concerned.
(3) The Secretary shall determine the facility overhead
charges to be imposed under the pilot program based on their
joint review of all items included in the overhead costs of
the facility concerned in order to determine which items are
appropriately incurred as facility overhead charges by the
contractor in carrying out research and other activities at
such facility under this section.
(4) The Secretary shall commence carrying out the pilot
program not later than October 1, 1999, and shall terminate
the pilot program on September 30, 2003.
(5) Not later than January 31, 2003, the Secretary shall
submit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, and other
appropriate committees of the House of Representatives an
interim report on the results of the pilot program under this
subsection. The report shall include any recommendations for
the extension or expansion of the pilot program, including
the establishment of multiple rates of overhead charges for
various categories of persons and entities seeking research
and other activities in contractor-operated facilities of the
Department.
(d) Partnerships and Interactions.--(1) The Secretary of
Energy may encourage partnerships and interactions between
each contractor-operated facility of the Department of Energy
and universities and private businesses.
(2) The Secretary may take into account the progress of
each contractor-operated facility of the Department in
developing and expanding partnerships and interactions under
paragraph (1) in evaluating the annual performance of such
contractor-operated facility.
(e) Small Business Technology Partnership Program.--(1) The
Secretary may require that each contractor operating a
facility of the Department establish a program at such
facility under which the contractor may enter into
partnerships with small businesses at such facility relating
to technology.
(2) The amount of funds expended by a contractor under a
program under paragraph (1) at a particular facility may not
exceed an amount equal to 0.25 percent of the total operating
budget of the facility.
(3) Amounts expended by a contractor under a program--
(A) shall be used to cover the costs (including research
and development costs and technical assistance costs)
incurred by the contractor in connection with activities
under the program; and
(B) may not be used for direct grants to small businesses.
(4) The Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense
committees, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of
the Senate, and the appropriate committee of the House of
Representatives, together with the budget of the President
for each fiscal year that is submitted to Congress under
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, an assessment
of the program under this subsection during the preceding
year, including the effectiveness of the program in providing
opportunities for small businesses to interact with and use
the resources of the contractor-operated facilities of the
Department, the cost of the program to the Federal government
and any impact on the execution of the Department's mission.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, partnerships among our federal
laboratories, universities, and industry provide important benefits to
our nation. They help to create innovative new products and services
that drive our economy and improve our quality of
[[Page S7138]]
life. Today I introduce the DOE Partnership Amendment to the National
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1999. This Amendment
improves the capabilities at the DOE sites for effective partnerships
and interactions with other federal agencies, with the private sector,
and with universities.
I have personally observed the positive impacts of well crafted
partnerships. These partnerships enhance the ability of the
laboratories and other contractor-operated facilities of the Department
of Energy to accomplish their federal missions at the same time that
the companies benefit through enhanced competitiveness from the
technical resources available at these sites.
I have also seen important successes achieved by other federal
agencies and companies that utilized the resources of the national
laboratories and other Department sites through contract research
mechanisms. Contract research enables these sites to contribute their
technical expertise in cases where the private sector can not supply a
customer's needs. Partnerships and other interactions enable companies
and other agencies to accomplish their own missions better, faster, and
cheaper.
I've seen spectacular examples where small businesses have been
created around breakthrough technologies from the national laboratories
and other contractor-operated sites of the DOE. But, at present, only
the Department's Defense Programs has a specific program for small
business partnerships and assistance.
All programs of the Department have expertise that can be driving
small business successes. Historically, in the United States, small
businesses have often been the most innovative and the fastest to
exploit new technical opportunities--all of the Department's programs
should be open to the small business interactions that Defense Programs
has so effectively utilized.
I have been concerned that barriers to these partnerships and
interactions continue to exist within the Department of Energy. In
addition, the Department's laboratories and other sites need continuing
encouragement to be fully receptive to partnership opportunities that
meet both their own mission objectives and industry's goals. And
finally, small business interactions should be encouraged across the
Department of Energy, not only in Defense Programs.
For these reasons, I introduced S. 1874 on March 27, 1998, the
Department of Energy Small Business and Industry Partnership
Enhancement Act of 1998, which was co-sponsored by Senators Thompson,
Craig, Kempthorne, Bingaman, Reid, and Lieberman. The National
Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing, or NACFAM, endorsed our actions
with S. 1874, describing it as ``a crucial step in reducing barriers to
cooperation between the national laboratories and private industry,
higher education institutions, non-profit entities, and state and local
governments.'' NACFAM also noted that this ``bill supports our shared
conviction that collaborative R&D will further strengthen America's
productivity growth and national security.''
Today I introduce, with Senator Bingaman as a co-sponsor, language
for amendment of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal
Year 1999 that accomplishes almost the same goals as S. 1874. This
Amendment was developed through consultation with several of the co-
sponsors, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Senate
Committee on Armed Services, and the Department of Energy.
This Amendment removes barriers to more effective utilization of all
of the Department's contractor-operated facilities by industry, other
federal agencies and universities. The Amendment covers all the
Department's contractor-operated facilities--national laboratories and
their other sites like Kansas City, Pantex, Hanford, Savannah River, or
the Nevada Test Site.
This Amendment also provides important encouragement to the
contractor-operated sites to increase their partnerships and other
interactions with universities and companies. And finally, it creates
opportunities for small businesses to benefit from the technical
resources available at all of the Department's contractor-operated
facilities.
This Amendment supplements the authority of the Atomic Energy Act,
which limited the areas wherein the Department's facilities could
provide research and other services, not in competition with the
private sector, to only those mission areas undertaken in the earliest
days of the AEC. My Amendment recognizes that the Department's
responsibilities are far broader than the original AEC, and that all
parts of the Department should be available to help on a contract basis
wherever capabilities are not available from private industry.
One barrier at the Department to contract research involves charges
added by the Department to the cost of work accomplished by a site. At
some laboratories, these charges now range up to 25%. This Amendment
requires that charges to customers for research and other services at
these facilities be fully recovered, and sharply limits addition of
extra charges by the Department to only 3%. The Amendment further
requires waiver of these extra charges for small business and non-
profit entities and provides a process for the Secretary of Energy to
continue any pre-existing waivers.
The Amendment creates a five-year pilot program for external
customers that enables facilities to examine their overhead rates and
determine if an alternative lower rate serves to cover services
actually used by these customers. For example, where companies or
universities do not require secure facilities or do not utilize the
extensive special nuclear material capabilities of the laboratories,
then the customer will be charged an overhead rate that excludes
security costs and environmental legacy costs. This pilot program will
enable the Department and facilities to evaluate the impact of these
lower overhead rates for one important class of external customers. The
Department is required to report in 2003 on the interim results of this
Pilot and to provide recommendations on possibly continuing this Pilot
and even extending it to include other federal customers.
The Amendment provides direct encouragement for expansion of
partnerships and interactions with companies and universities by
requiring that each facility be annually judged for success in
expanding these interactions in ways that support each facility's
missions. The Amendment requires that the external partnership and
interaction program be considered in evaluating the annual contract
performance at each site.
And finally, the Amendment sets up a new Small Business Partnership
Program in which all of the Department sites participate. This action
will enable small businesses across the United States to better access
and partner with any of the Department's contractor-owned facilities. A
fund for such interactions up to 0.25 percent of the total site budget
is available for these small business interactions.
With these changes, Mr. President, the Department of Energy
facilities will be better able to meet their critical national
missions, while at the same time assisting other federal agencies,
large and small businesses, and universities in better meeting their
goals and missions.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this
amendment. I cosponsored the bill on which it is based, S. 1874, with
Senator Domenici and our offices have worked closely together with the
Administration and with the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
to get this amendment cleared. I believe that the amendment
accomplishes several important objectives. It clarifies the ability of
the Department to engage in mutually beneficial research and
development interactions with external partners. It reduces red tape
associated with these interactions. It encourages DOE facilities to
cooperate with small businesses. These are all steps that strengthen
DOE's research capabilities at all its facilities and increase the
contribution that the Department can make to our national research and
innovation system. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
amendment no. 3023
(Purpose: Relating to Department of Defense aviation accident
investigations)
SEC. 908. MILITARY AVIATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In February 1996, the GAO released a report
highlighting a 75% reduction in aviation
[[Page S7139]]
Class A mishaps, a 70% reduction in aviation mishap
fatalities and a 65% reduction in Class A mishap rates from
1975-1995 (Military Aircraft Safety--Significant Improvements
since 1975).
(2) In February 1998, the GAO completed a follow-up review
of military aircraft safety, noting that the military
experienced fewer serious aviation mishaps in fiscal years
1996 and 1997 than in previous fiscal years (Military
Aircraft Safety: Serious Accidents Remain at Historically Low
Levels).
(3) The report required by section 1046 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law
105-85; 111 Stat. 1888) concluded, ``DoD found no evidence
that changing existing investigation processes to more
closely resemble those of the NTSB would help DoD to find
more answers more quickly, or accurately.''
(4) The Department of Defense must further improve its
aviation safety by fully examining all options for improving
or replacing its current aviation accident investigation
processes.
(5) The inter-service working group formed as a result of
that report has contributed to progress in military aviation
accident investigations by identifying ways to improve family
assistance, as has the formal policy direction coordinated by
the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
(6) Such progress includes the issuance of Air Force
Instruction 90-701 entitled ``Assistance to Families of
Persons Involved in Air Force Aviation Mishaps,'' that
attempts to meet the need for a more timely flow of relevant
information to families, a family liaison officer, and the
establishment of the Air Force Office of Family Assistance.
However, formal policy directions and Air Force instructions
have not adequately addressed the failure to provide primary
next of kin of members of the Armed Forces involved in
military aviation accidents with interim reports regarding
the course of investigations into such accidents, and the
Department of Defense must improve its procedures for
informing the families of the persons involved in military
aviation mishaps.
(7) The report referred to in paragraph (3) concluded that
the Department would ``benefit from the disappearance of the
misperception that the privileged portion of the safety
investigation exists to hide unfavorable information''.
(8) That report further specified that ``[e]ach Military
Department has procedures in place to provide redacted copies
of the final [privileged] safety report to the families.
However, families must formally request a copy of the final
safety investigation report''.
(9) Current efforts to improve family notification would be
enhanced by the issuance by the Secretary of Defense of
uniform regulations to improve the timeliness and reliability
of information provided to the primary next of kin of persons
involved in military aviation accidents during and following
both the legal investigation and safety investigation phases
of such investigations.
(b) Evaluation of Department of Defense Aviation Accident
Investigation Procedures.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
establish a task force to--
(A) review the procedures employed by the Department of
Defense to conduct military aviation accident investigations;
and
(B) identify mechanisms for improving such investigations
and the military aviation accident investigation process.
(2) The Secretary shall appoint to the task force the
following:
(A) An appropriate number of members of the Armed Forces,
including both members of the regular components and the
reserve components, who have experience relating to military
aviation or investigations into military aviation accidents.
(B) An appropriate number of former members of the Armed
Forces who have such experience.
(C) With the concurrence of the member concerned, a member
of the National Transportation Safety Board.
(3)(A) The task force shall submit to Congress an interim
report and a final report on its activities under this
subsection. The interim report shall be submitted on December
1, 1998, and the final report shall be submitted on March 31,
1999.
(B) Each report under subparagraph (A) shall include the
following:
(i) An assessment of the advisability of conducting all
military aviation accident investigations through an entity
that is independent of the military departments.
(ii) An assessment of the effectiveness of the current
military aviation accident investigation process in
identifying the cause of military aviation accidents and
correcting problems so identified in a timely manner.
(iii) An assessment whether or not the procedures for
sharing the results of military aviation accident
investigations among the military departments should be
improved.
(iv) An assessment of the advisability of centralized
training and instruction for military aircraft investigators.
(v) An assessment of any costs or cost avoidances that
would result from the elimination of any overlap in military
aviation accident investigation activities conducted under
the current so-called ``two track'' investigation process.
(vi) Any improvements or modifications in the current
military aviation accident investigation process that the
task force considers appropriate to reduce the potential for
aviation accidents and increase public confidence in the
process.
(C) Uniform regulations for release of interim safety
investigation reports.--(1)(A) Not later than May 1, 1999,
the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations that
provide for the release to the family members of persons
involved in military aviation accidents, and to members of
the public, of reports referred to in paragraph (2).
(B) The regulations shall apply uniformly to each military
department.
(2) A report under paragraph (1) is a report on the
findings of any ongoing privileged safety investigation into
an accident referred to in that paragraph. Such report shall
be in a redacted form or other form appropriate to preserve
witness confidentiality and to minimize the effects of the
release of information in such report on national security.
(3) Reports under paragraph (1) shall be made available--
(A) in the case of family members, at least once every 30
days or upon the development of a new or significantly
changed finding during the course of the investigation
concerned; and
(B) in the case of members of the public, on request.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, for nearly two years, my home state has
suffered through an agonizing process, trying to find out what happened
aboard King-56, an Air Force Reserves C-130 that crashed off of the
California coast, killing 10 of the 11 Oregon airmen on board in
November, 1996. The families of those victims have worked tirelessly to
find out the truth, both for their own peace-of-mind and so that
corrections could be made, if necessary, to protect other American
servicepeople. It should not have been nearly as hard as it has been to
get this information.
Drawing from this experience, my Oregon colleague Senator Smith and I
have joined together to put forward this proposal to try to change the
procedures that the Air Force uses for investigating crashes of this
sort, so that others will be spared the suffering that Oregonians have
had to ensure.
At the outset, let me acknowledge the hard work of the Air Force
since reopening the King-56 investigation late last year. For many
months now, a Broad Area Review, or simply BAR, to use the military
acronym, has been both investigating the cause of the King-56 crash and
the safety of the entire C-130 fleet. The BAR, after thoroughly re-
checking all available material, and having the help of an experienced
NTSB crash investigator, was able to narrow down the list of possible
causes of the crash to about two dozen, and determined that the only
way to pinpoint the cause would be to recover additional King-56
wreckage. The Air Force candidly admitted that they were mistaken not
to have collected all the wreckage in the first place, and that they
would do everything they could this time to get it right. They are out
in the ocean right now trying to salvage everything they can. I know
that the families are eagerly awaiting the results of the new salvage
operation, and, hopefully, the Air Force will soon learn the exact
cause of the crash, and give the families some sense of closure.
Finding the exact cause of the King-56 crash has another, very
important purpose. Crews flying other C-130's have frequently reported
problems similar to what the Oregon reservists encountered on their
airplanes. The BAR has been able to apply the lessons learned from the
King-56 crash to the entire fleet. For example, a major problem the BAR
turned up was the near total inconsistency in emergency procedures
manuals issued to crews. The Air Force identified this problem,
standardized and rewrote the manuals, and issued them to all C-130
crews.
And thank goodness they did. Because earlier this year a C-130 took
off from McChord Air Force Base in Washington state and experienced an
engine problem known as ``four-engine rollback,'' or loss of power to
the engines. The C-130 that went down off the California coast also had
simultaneous failure of all four engines. In that instance the
emergency manual listed as an option ditching the plane in the ocean,
which turned out to be a tragic error, and only one crewman survived.
However, the C-130 that took off from McChord had a newly revised
emergency manual on board written after the BAR review. They were able
to bring their plane under control and land it safely. So I am pleased
the Air Force found and fixed such problems, making these planes safer.
Although this is welcome progress, nagging questions keep coming to
[[Page S7140]]
mind. Why did the original investigation not make as much progress in
finding the cause of the accident? Why did the Air Force turn up the
numerous flaws and problems in safety procedures in the C-130 fleet
only after two Senators stepped in to get them to conduct a more
thorough review? The plain fact is that the problems with the original
investigation were not an isolated incident. The failure of the
original investigation was a symptom of the shortcomings of current
investigation procedures and guidelines in general.
We need an aviation accident investigation process that would have
gotten it right the first time around. Reports indicate that Pentagon
crash investigators are undertrained and under funded. I question
whether the current system of conducting two separate investigations,
one public, the other secret, is the best system possible for finding
the causes of accidents and applying the lessons learned.
So what the Wyden/Smith amendment does is simple and straightforward.
It establishes a Pentagon task force to review procedures the
Department of Defense employs to conduct aircraft accident
investigations and to develop solutions for improving the overall
process. I give the Pentagon credit for their renewed diligence on the
King-56 investigation and their review of the C-130 fleet. It is my
hope--and expectation--that they apply this diligence to coming up with
ways to improve the overall process, and make the planes our men and
women in uniform fly every day safer.
Our amendment also touches on how families are notified of such
terrible accidents and of the care and support they receive. The reason
the Oregon families first came to Senator Smith and me was because,
after losing their loved ones, the Air Force treated them miserably,
there's no better way to put it. Not only did the Air Force not provide
the families with the support, guidance, and comfort that they
deserved, but they refused to provide the answer that would have surely
been at the top of any of our minds had we lost a loved one: how could
this possibly have happened? Their treatment was far inferior to the
way Congress recently mandated families be treated in civilian aviation
accidents.
What the families of King-56 got was a totally inconclusive
investigation report. When they wanted more information, especially
what was contained in the separate, secret safety report, the Air Force
refused outright. Senator Smith and I tried to help them obtain the
answers they needed, but we, too, were met with more stonewalling.
After we brought significant pressure to bear, the Air Force decided to
reopen the probe. Since then they have done a better job of keeping the
families fully informed of the progress of their investigation.
The King-56 episode turned up a number of basic problems with the way
the Pentagon notifies families in such terrible cases. Working closely
with the families, Senator Smith and I passed amendments to last year's
defense bill that have led to improvements in family notification
procedures. For example, earlier this year the Air Force issued
instructions to improve the flow of information to families, to enhance
the role of family liaison officers, and to establish an Office of
Family Assistance. DoD efforts to improve family notification are still
ongoing, and I intend to watch their progress closely in case further
action is needed in Congress.
Although I welcome this progress, one basic issue has been left out
of the mix, namely, the problem of providing families with maximum
information not only after an investigation has been concluded, but,
more importantly, while the investigation is taking place in the weeks
and months after an accident. The Air Force has proposed to do a better
job of informing families about how investigations are conducted and
even why they can't have any information immediately. While attempts to
provide better information are helpful, current efforts just don't get
at one of the biggest headaches the Oregon families encountered:
knowing what the investigators know.
The Wyden/Smith amendment, in addition to requiring DoD to come up
with improvements in accident investigations, gets at this problem. We
require the Pentagon to provide next of kin with regular and timely
interim reports on the progress of both legal and safety
investigations, providing them with the best possible information
during what must be a most agonizing ordeal. Better information about
ongoing investigations is just one part of what families need, and it
is my hope that future families will not have to endure what the Oregon
families were forced to. Again, I think the DoD learned its lesson
about how to treat families, especially after the DoD Inspector General
scrutinized it as a result of our amendment last year, and they are
actively working on solutions. But the specific need for interim
reports needs to be addressed as well.
I'd like to thank the Air Force again for their diligence in
reopening the King-56 crash investigation and helping the families
reach closure on this terrible episode. I am pleased by the progress
the Pentagon has made in improving C-130 fleet safety, and by the
measures they've taken to treat families better in the future. It's
time to apply the lessons learned from King-56 to all accident
investigations, and I look forward to working with the Pentagon in the
future to make sure our men and women in uniform fly the safest
airplanes possible, and that their families receive the best possible
care and attention, in good times as well as the bad.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague
from Oregon in offering this amendment to the Department of Defense
Authorization Bill on the handling of Department of Defense aviation
accident investigations. In November 1996, 10 Portland-based Air Force
reservists were killed in a mysterious C-130 King-56 plane crash. For
nearly 2 years, Senator Wyden and I have been working with the Air
Force and the families in order to find an explanation for how this
tragic accident occurred. We have learned more since asking that the
Air Force renew its investigation, and we are confident that we will
soon know the cause of this accident. I wish to thank the Air Force for
reopening its investigation and for its subsequent efforts. We owed
that to the families of these Air Force reservists, that their widows
and children be given the information needed for understanding.
I am pleased to have joined my colleague from Oregon in seeking
answers for these families still struggling with their losses and
ensuring greater responsiveness to the families of our military
personnel in the future. This Wyden/Smith amendment will create a task
force to review aviation accident investigations and identify areas for
improvement. I will also ensure that families be provided with regular
reports regarding ongoing investigations.
My thoughts continue to be with the families of the victims from the
C-130 accident in November. I thank them for bringing this to our
attention and I commend them on their patience and strength. I also
thank my Oregon colleague, Senator Wyden, for his leadership on this
issue. I appreciate the efforts of Air Force officials and look forward
to working with them in the future to protect our service members and
their families.
amendment no. 3024
(Purpose: To amend Title 5, United States Code, to enable the Secretary
of Energy to set a maximum age at which new couriers may enter the
Department of Energy's nuclear materials courier force and to provide
early retirement programs for the Department's nuclear materials
couriers)
At the appropriate place add the following:
Section 1. Section 3307 of Title 5, United States Code, is
amended as follows:
(1) by striking in subsection (a) ``and (d)'' and inserting
in its place ``(d), (e), and (f)''; and
(2) by adding the following new subsection (f) after
subsection (e):
``(f) The Secretary of Energy may determine and fix the
maximum age limit for an original appointment to a position
as a Department of Energy nuclear materials courier, so
defined by section 8331(27) of this title.''.
Sec. 2. Section 8331 of Title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding the following new paragraph (27) after
paragraph (26):
``(27) Department of Energy nuclear materials courier means
an employee of the Department of Energy or its predecessor
agencies, the duties of whose position are primarily to
transport, and provide armed escort and protection during
transit of, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon components,
strategic quantities of special nuclear materials or other
materials related to national security, including an employee
who remains fully certified to engage in this activity who
[[Page S7141]]
is transferred to a supervisory, training, or administrative
position.''.
Sec. 3. (a) The first sentence of Section 8334(a)(1) of
Title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``and a
firefighter,'' and inserting in its place ``a firefighter,
and a Department of Energy nuclear materials courier,''.
(b) Section 8334(c) of Title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding the following new schedule after the
schedule for a Member of the Capitol Police:
``Department of Energy nuclear materials courier for
courier service (while employed by DOE and its predecessor
agencies)--5 July 1, 1942 to June 30, 1948, 6 July 1, 1948 to
October 31, 1956, 6\1/2\ November 1, 1956 to December 31,
1969, 7 January 1, 1970 to December 31, 1974, 7\1/2\ After
December 31, 1974.''.
Sec. 4. Section 8336(c)(1) of Title 5, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``or firefighter'' and inserting in
its place, ``a firefighter, or a Department of Energy nuclear
materials courier,''.
Sec. 5. Section 8401 of Title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding the following new paragraph (33) after
paragraph (32):
``(33) Department of Energy nuclear materials courier means
an employee of the Department of Energy or its predecessor
agencies, the duties of whose position are primarily to
transport, and provide armed escort and protection during
transit of, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons components,
strategic quantities of special nuclear materials, or other
materials related to national security, including an employee
who remains fully certified to engage in this activity who is
transferred to a supervisory, training, or administrative
position.''.
Sec. 6. Section 8412(d) of Title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``or firefighter'' in paragraphs (1) and
(2) and inserting in its place ``a firefighter, or a
Department of Energy nuclear materials courier,''.
Sec. 7. Section 8415(g) of Title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``firefighter'' and inserting in its
place ``firefighter, Department of Energy nuclear materials
courier,''.
Sec. 8. Section 8422(a)(3) of Title 5, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``firefighter'' in the schedule and
inserting in its place ``firefighter, Department of Energy
nuclear materials courier,''.
Sec. 9. Sections 8423(a)(1)(B)(i) and 8423(a)(3)(A) of
Title 5, United States Code, are amended by striking
``firefighters'' and inserting in its place ``firefighters,
Department of Energy nuclear materials couriers,''.
Sec. 10. Section 8335(b) of Title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding the words ``or Department of Energy Nuclear
Materials Couriers'' after the word ``officer'' in the second
sentence.
Sec. 11. These amendments are effective at the beginning of
the first pay period in fiscal year 2000, and apply only to
those employees who retire after fiscal year 1999.
Sec. 12. Any payments made by the Department of Energy to
the Civil Service Retirement or Disability Fund pursuant to
this Act shall be made from the Weapons Activities account.
____
amendment no. 3025
(Purpose: To require a review and report on National Guard resourcing)
At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1031. REVIEW AND REPORT REGARDING THE DISTRIBUTION OF
NATIONAL GUARD RESOURCES AMONG STATES.
(a) Requirement for Review.--The Chief of the National
Guard Bureau shall review the process used for allocating and
distributing resources, including all categories of full-time
manning, among the States for the National Guard of the
States.
(b) Purpose of Review.--The purpose of the review is to
determine whether the process provides for adequately funding
the National Guard of the States that have within the
National Guard no unit or few (15 or less) units categorized
in readiness tiers I, II, and III.
(c) Matters Reviewed.--The matters reviewed shall include
the following:
(1) The factors considered for the process of determining
the distribution of resources, including the weights assigned
to the factors.
(2) The extent to which the process results in funding for
the units of the States described in subsection (b) at the
levels necessary to optimize the preparedness of the units to
meet the mission requirements applicable to the units.
(3) The effects that funding at levels determined under the
process will have on the National Guard of those States in
the future, including the effects on all categories of full-
time manning, and unit readiness, recruitment, and continued
use of existing National Guard armories and other facilities.
(d) Report.--Not later than March 15, 1999, the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau shall submit a report on the
results of the review to the congressional defense
committees.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the defense authorization bill is one of
the most important pieces of legislation we consider each year and by
far the largest annual authorization bill. Even though the bill's
overall numbers are huge by comparison to most others, the Department
of Defense is being forced to make difficult spending decisions and
curtail its program requests for future years in order to live within a
budget that has shrunk in real terms. I recognize that this is a
difficult challenge.
However, I feel compelled to bring to my colleagues attention a
matter of great concern to me--funding for the National Guard. The
Department of Defense has not given sufficient attention or resources
to this important component of our national defense. We all understand
the importance of the Active Duty forces, and support for the active
component must be strong. However, this must not come at the expense of
an equally important component--the National Guard. I need not belabor
the virtues of the National Guard for most of my colleagues. They are
familiar with the cost savings that come from assigning duties to the
National Guard. Senators also appreciate the critically important role
the Guard plays in times of emergency in our own States. And most
Members of Congress understand the intangible political benefits that
come from having citizen soldiers and from maintaining a force that is
intertwined with the fabric of daily life in every state to a much
greater degree than the active component. The National Guard and
Reserves are the face of the US military for many Americans, yet they
continue to get second billing when it comes to the distribution of
resources.
In particular, I am concerned about the unintended consequences of
National Guard Bureau formulas for distributing manpower and resources
among the various Guard units. The current system gives priority to top
tier units, which would seem to make sense at first glance, as those
are the ones maintained at the highest readiness levels. However, the
funding allocated to each unit then comes together somewhat randomly to
form the mosaic of each State's National Guard and Reserve forces
overall funding. Distortions sometimes creep in that cannot be
corrected at the State level. I have found this to be true in the
technician end strength levels projected for my State's National Guard
for the coming years. A steady drop over the past few years combined
with a projected cut of 15 percent next year would put the Vermont
Guard in a very difficult position. It is quite possible that the
resources coming to Vermont in the near future to support its essential
operations will fall well below the acceptable level, and below what I
believe even the National Guard Bureau would recognize as appropriate.
The Vermont Guard has performed exceedingly well, winning national
recognition in some instances, even though most of its units have been
resourced at only 55 percent. But with projected cuts to 35 percent,
for a drop of 20 percent over three years, I worry that Vermont will
have to make cuts in its core program, like closing armories.
Mr. President, each State's National Guard is a unique compilation of
duties and responsibilities, all deemed critical to our national
defense. No State's mission should be slighted because the formulas
don't allow for an overall assessment of the aggregate funding level
and an opportunity to correct shortfalls that are deemed unreasonably
harsh for any one State. I can only assume that a few other States'
National Guards are suffering in much the same manner as Vermont is.
The Armed Services Committee has been helpful to Senator Leahy and me
in our efforts to address this problem. We offer this amendment to
direct the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to examine the process of
resource distribution and, in particular, to evaluate the effects of
these allocations upon each State's ability to carry out its missions.
This report should also shed light on the aggregate effects of the
current formulas for determining allocation and distribution of full-
time manning strengths. I trust that this report will clarify the exact
nature of this problem and allow the Pentagon and Congress to address
it directly next year.
We have agreed not to specify minimum end strength levels for
military technicians, but we trust that the Committee will make every
effort to recede in conference to the minimum end strength levels
endorsed by the House of Representatives in its authorization
legislation.
I appreciate the support the Committee has given us in this effort
and I urge my colleagues' endorsement of this amendment.
[[Page S7142]]
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment with my
colleague and friend from Vermont, Senator Jeffords. Recently, I was
dismayed to learn that the Vermont Army National Guard is programmed to
receive yet another cut in its full-time manning. nearly all of us take
pride in supporting our state National Guard units. The Guard is a
critical state asset when we experience natural disasters and other
state emergencies. The Guard offers professional opportunities and
education for our young constituents. Perhaps most importantly, the
Guard is available in case our nation ever finds itself at war. Fully
58% of our Army's combat forces are located in the National Guard, and
an Army Guard combat unit can do the same job as its active duty
counterpart for less than half the cost. But all these benefits are
wasted if we do not provide enough resources for our Guard to train,
and enough full-time personnel so that our Guardsmen can take full
advantage of the limited time they spend in uniform.
For many years now, the Army has been giving some Guard units more
resources than others. The allocation model that the Army uses is based
on which units would be called to fight first. That is fine in
principle, but in practice the resources that have been given to lower
priority units have been insufficient. For example, in recent years the
Vermont Guard's 86th Brigade has been receiving about 55% of its full
time manning requirements. These are the men and women who prepare for
each month's drill weekend, maintain and fix equipment, recruit new
soldiers from the community, and do all the other tasks that need to be
done during the month. Higher priority Guard units have been receiving
70 to 75 percent of their full time manning requirements. Although 55
percent was not sufficient, it has been enough for the 86th brigade.
They recently were noted for the fact that they qualified one of their
tank battalions on the regular Army's tough Tank Table 12 live-fire
test. The Vermonters were only the second unit in the country to
achieve this honor, the first being an enhanced unit from Idaho.
That is why I was so disturbed that the Army was set to cut Vermont's
full-time support down to between 30 and 34 percent, according to a
letter I received from Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army Jayson
Spiegal on March 3 of this year. At that level of funding, I have been
told that Vermont would have to close some of its armories because it
would not have enough funds to keep two soldiers in each armory. Of
course, I am worried about my own state, which has one of the oldest
militia traditions dating back to Benedict Arnold's Green Mountain Boys
of Revolutionary War fame. But there are eight other National Guard
combat divisions spread across the country, and I want to inform my
colleagues that each of those units is in danger of suffering a death
of a thousand cuts by a lack of resources.
The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee have
accepted this amendment from Senator Jeffords and myself which requires
that the Head of the Guard Bureau provide a report to the four defense
committees of Congress to ensure that states with a large number of
lower-priority National Guard units are not being disproportionately
impacted by full-time manning reductions.
Mr. President, I want to close by thanking Senator Thurmond and
Senator Levin for accommodating me and my colleague from Vermont on
this amendment. Their expertise and hard work for our nation's defenses
are appreciated by all of us in this body.
Amendment No. 3026
(Purpose: To provide health benefits for abused dependents of members
of the armed forces)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
Paragraph (1) of section 1076(e) of Title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
(1) The administering Secretary shall furnish an abused
dependent of a former member of a uniformed service described
in paragraph (4), during that period that the abused
dependent is in receipt of transitional compensation under
section 1059 of this title, with medical and dental care,
including mental health services, in facilities of the
uniformed services in accordance with the same eligibility
and benefits as were applicable for that abused dependent
during the period of active service of the former member.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President today I am introducing an amendment that
will show the heart and hands of our government in caring for the
victims of domestic violence in the military.
My amendment is simple: it will provide health benefits for abused
dependents of members of the armed forces, who are currently receiving
transitional compensation due to their batterer's discharge or court
martial for abuse. These health benefits include medical, dental, and
mental health care at armed forces facilities. Victims, battered women
and abused children, would be entitled to health benefits for as long
as they received transitional compensation, which is a maximum of three
years. The financial expense would be negligible; but the increased
care, safety and dignity given to our military dependents who are
victims of abuse would be huge.
Domestic violence is one of the most serious issues we face. It knows
no borders. Neither economic status, geography, or race shields someone
from domestic violence. It is happening to women in your families, your
neighborhoods, and in your place of work and worship. Most distressing,
it is happening at an alarming rate in military families.
Battering is the one of the single greatest causes of injury to
women. According to Department of Justice statistics, of the 1.4
million hospital emergency room admissions in 1994, about one quarter
were treated for injuries from domestic violence.
Among civilians, the DoJ has estimated that, on average each year,
from 1992-1996, about 8 in 1000 women . . . age 12 or older experienced
a violent victimization by a spouse or boyfriend.
The numbers for domestic violence victims in the military are deeply
disturbing and much bigger. Department of Defense data indicates 17.8
to 19.0 women per 1000 for substantiated reports of abuse during the
same period. Substantiated reports of abuse are those confirmed by a
military review panel.
Many battered women and their children in the military do not come
forward because they fear they will be destitute or lose key benefits
if their spouses are discharged or court-martialed on the grounds of
abuse. This amendment reduces the disincentives of victims to come
forward about the violence in their homes. It allows dependent family
members in the military to get the health services they need, so that
they can escape their abusers and move toward independence.
There have been cases brought to my attention where military
dependents could have benefited from this legislation, and we know,
that sadly, there are many more such stories throughout the military.
Annette is the former wife of a Navy Chief Petty Officer and mother
of two young children. She was routinely beaten by him from June 1994
through 1996. Military protective orders and civilian restraining
orders failed to protect her and her children. Her ex-husband was
charged with twenty-one offenses by the United States Navy, including
eight assault charge involving Annette. He was ultimately court-
martialed.
Due to domestic violence, Annette has been declared ninety percent
disabled by doctors and therapists. She suffers from severe skeletal
and muscular damage to her back from an attempted rape by her husband;
debilitating migraines due to nerve damage; dental problems as a result
of her teeth being knocked out; and post traumatic stress disorder.
These are just a few of her challenges while attempting to raise two
children. She is receiving transitional compensation, but has had no
health benefits. She has several thousands of dollars in unpaid medical
bills.
We need to ensure that military wives and dependents like Annette get
the health services they need and deserve to care for their children
and to heal. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
amendment no. 3027
(Purpose: To eliminate secret Senate holds)
On page ____, after line ____, insert the following:
SEC. ____. ELIMINATING SECRET SENATE HOLDS.
(a) Standing Order.--It is a standing order of the Senate
that a Senator who provides
[[Page S7143]]
notice to leadership of his or her intention to object to
proceeding to a motion or matter shall disclose the objection
or hold in the Congressional Record not later than 2 session
days after the date of the notice.
(b) Rulemaking.--This section is adopted--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and as such it is deemed a part of the rules of the Senate
and it supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is
inconsistent with such rules; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
the Senate to change its rules at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other
rule of the Senate.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, fewer than 50 legislative days
remain in the session. Dozens of nominations are pending and more than
400 items are on the calender. Being an election year, this is a recipe
for an explosion of an extraordinarily powerful Senate practice. . .
the use of secret holds.
On Monday evening, Senator Grassley and I came to the floor to put
members on notice that we would be offering the same amendment we
offered last year on anonymous holds. We discussed the Century-old
Senate tradition of members being granted the courtesy of ``holding'' a
debate until they are available to participate. We believe this
venerable Senate practice should continue. As a public institution,
however, we believe the use of holds should occur in the full light of
day. We believe in the not-so-radical notion that the public's business
should be done in public.
The amendment we are offering is identical to an amendment that the
Senate adopted last Fall. The amendment would eliminate the secrecy of
the Senate's holds procedure. It would simply require that any Senator
who notifies leadership of an intent to object to a motion to proceed
make that objection public within 48 hours.
Last fall, the Senate adopted an identical amendment by voice vote.
No Senator spoke out against it. We had discussed this idea for more
than a year. But in the closing hours of the last session, our
amendment was dropped from the D.C. Appropriations bill. At that time I
vowed to stay at it until it's done.
Today, as time is running out on the session, we are sure to face the
same situation again of a proliferation of anonymous holds. They will
threaten the Senate with legislative gridlock. When the Senate dropped
our amendment last Fall, there were at least 42 holds in play, and even
the Minority Leader had to admit to reporters that he didn't know who
had placed them. ``If you don't have hold, you ought to feel
lonesome,'' Senator Daschle said.
Over the past eight months, we have been working in a bipartisan
manner to lift the secrecy that so often surrounds the use of holds. We
have worked with the Leader's Bipartisan Task Force on Senate Reform.
In February, nine Senators joined Senator Grassley and me in a
bipartisan letter to the Senate leadership asking that they work with
us to change the Standing Orders of the Senate to eliminate anonymous
holds. We made it clear we are not out to scrap the Senate's holds
procedure, but to scrap the secrecy surrounding it.
In May, the Bipartisan Task Force on Senate Reform, chaired by
Senator Bennett, reviewed this idea and discussed it with the floor
staff of both parties. The members expressed great interest in it, but
it was clear from our discussions that certain members in key positions
would not look favorably on the task force moving forward with the
idea.
The right of every member of this body to prevent debate on a motion
or bill is a very powerful tool. But this right can be found nowhere in
the Constitution, nowhere in our Federal statutes and nowhere in the
Senate's rules. In fact, it is not a Senate rule or standing order. It
is not a right. It is a practice, or a custom that we have come to view
as a right.
Let me be clear: our amendment does not challenge or affect in any
way the ability of each Senator to place a hold. Our amendment would
preserve that ability. What we are challenging is the way in which
Senators use this extraordinary power. Such extraordinary power should
be exercised in public.
The use of secret holds leads to a curious game of procedural ``hide
and seek.'' Senator A, for example, blocks Senator B's bill with a
hold, so B sets off to buttonhole all 99 other Senators, trying to find
out who is responsible. If the Senator does find out, it is possible B
will place a hold on A's bills in retaliation. Sometimes it becomes
even more complex, with ``revolving holds,'' where the group of
objecting Senators simply rotates the hold, always one step ahead of
the Senator chasing down the hold to try to move a bill. Another
session should not become bogged down with burdensome, anonymous holds.
The Senate is a public institution. Our offices are open to the
public, we conduct our hearings in public, our debate takes place in
public and each time we answer the roll call, everyone knows how each
Senator voted. But many of our holds are not public. We believe the
public's business should be conducted in public.
At a time when the American people are increasingly cynical and
skeptical about government, there should no longer be any room for the
kind of closed-door dealings represented by the secret hold. The secret
hold cheapens the currency of democracy. We should open the door on
this closet filibuster.
Mr. President, our amendment provides that every Senator may continue
to place a hold on a measure or matter, and simply requires that the
Senator announce the hold publicly within 48 hours. Our amendment
enables the Senate both to maintain its proud traditions and to have
openness and accountability.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support
the Wyden-Grassle amendment banning secret holds. My colleagues should
be aware of our efforts by now, but in case they are not, this is what
we are trying to do. My good friend from Oregon and I are offering
language that would require any Senator who wishes to place a hold on
legislation or a nomination must notify the Senate and the American
people of his or her action.
This can be done either through the Congressional Record or a
statement on the floor. I want my colleagues to understand: This
amendment does not, I repeat, does not ban holds. With our proposal,
Senators can continue to place a hold on any legislation they wish. Our
amendment simply requires that they be open about it.
I firmly believe this amendment will improve the daily workings of
the Senate. First, it will make the Senate more accountable.
Too many Americans think that we in Congress don't take
responsibility for what we do. This amendment will give Americans
greater peace of mind that their public servants are responsible and
accountable. And we cannot function effectively if we do not have the
basic trust of the people we work for--our constituents.
I know in my own experience I have had to spend valuable time trying
to find out who had put a hold on legislation of mine. Tracking down a
hold is a tremendous waste of time and effort.
If someone has put a hold on one of my bills, under this proposal I
can immediately go to that Senator and talk about his or her concerns
and see if we can work things out. When we engage in reasoned debate
and give and take on issues is when this body serves the best interests
of the American people most effectively. I believe open holds will do
much to facilitate this.
Members may think they could face retribution if they declare a hold.
However, Senator Wyden and I have both practiced open holds, and I
can tell my colleagues that there is no reason for them to fear
retribution or reprisal. I have never faced any repercussions from
stating my intention to place a hold and I would imagine Senator Wyden
would say the same.
Senators need to know that voting against this amendment will not
make it go away, because Senator Wyden and I intend to pursue this
reform until we succeed. And I know we will succeed because this is the
right thing to do.
It is right to be open with the American people and it is right to be
open with your fellow Senators. It is time we made this reform because
the secrecy surrounding holds is not required by Senate rules or the
Constitution or any other instrument of Government that I know of and
it has been allowed to go on much too long. Our proposal is simple,
reasonable and fair. I know there are some who say we need to study
this issue a little longer. I reject that notion. This is not a
complicated change we are proposing.
In closing, I just want to urge my fellow Senators again as
emphatically as I can to support this amendment. I
[[Page S7144]]
have heard many of my colleagues express to me and to Senator Wyden
that they believe this reform is necessary. Now those of us who support
openness and accountability in government have an opportunity to act on
those convictions. I urge a yes vote on the Wyden-Grassley open holds
amendment.
amendment no. 3028
(Purpose: To provide $5,000,000 for research, development, test, and
evaluation for the Low Cost Launch Development Program)
At the end of subtitle B of title II, add the following:
SEC. 219 LOW COST LAUNCH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
(a) Amount From Air Force Funding--Of the total amount
authorized to be appropriated under section 201(3),
$5,000,000 is available for the Low Cost Launch Development
Program.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to provide
$5 million for programs that will radically reduce space launch costs.
I understand that this amendment has been accepted by the Chairman and
Ranking Member, and I thank them for their cooperation in this regard.
This amendment will provide support for further development of robust
and cost-effective launch vehicles. One such program, the Scorpius Low
Cost Launch Development Program, has met development goals on or under
budget in every instance. Delays in the program have been a result of
bureaucratic delays, rather than technical problems. This is a solid
program, and it deserves our full support.
In addition to a need for the U.S. to regain a competitive position
in the international market for space launch, critical national
security concerns can be addressed by reducing these costs.
Achieving reduced launch costs is clearly in the national interest.
From 1993 through 1997, the United States spent roughly $11 billion for
unmanned space launches--well over $2 billion annually. Due to these
unnecessary and exorbitant costs, we have lost the commercial space
launch industry, which America pioneered, to overseas competitors.
Moreover, the excessive costs of space launch in this country have
induced current and past Presidents to allow satellite launches from
China, Russia and France. It currently costs $10,000 to $12,000 a pound
to launch a payload using U.S. rockets. In contrast, China charges
$4,000 to $5,000 per pound. Thus, satellite companies can save up to
$50 million by using foreign source to put their satellites into orbit.
There is a further national security objective that demand cheaper
space launch capability. Command and control elements of our military
force increasingly rely on digital and satellite communications
capability. These communications capabilities and global positioning
systems require sufficient satellites for effective implementation. The
U.S. can either pay exorbitant amounts to attain adequate
communications capabilities or we can support low-cost launch programs
now that will radically reduce the costs incurred later.
I have been following closely the progress of Microcosm, a small
California company, and its Scorpius program. This is an effort to
lower space launch cost from the current level of over $7,000 per pound
to low Earth orbit to under $1,000 per pound. If successful, the
current launch cost for a 15,000 pound military communications
satellite would drop from over $75 million to less than $15 million.
The over $2 billion per year U.S. cost would drop to less than $255
million per year--for the same level of effort.
The design of these systems is robust with a margin of two-to-one
compared to current rockets with a near one-to-four factor, almost
nothing. Its launch crew is comprised of 12 technicians, not the
current hundreds, even thousands of engineers needed today. Those same
12 technicians, when not actually firing the rocket, would be
assembling them. It is truly a simple design.
Scorpius would be a bona fide ``launch on demand'' vehicle, able to
lift off within 8 hours after the payload arrives at the launch site.
Its short, squat design, though less elegant than present rockets,
makes it oblivious to weather limitations, such as high wind. It would
not require the extensive launch infrastructure, such as gantry,
providing great flexibility of where it could be fixed. If desirable,
Scorpius could even be sea-launched. Our military field commanders
would be able to request and receive the satellite resources they need
when and where they need them.
Microcosm has already received 12 SBIR contracts for Scorpius
totaling roughly $4 million. All SBIR contracts were awarded
competitively. In Fiscal year 1997, Congress specifically funded
Scorpius with the program receiving $7.5 million; in Fiscal Year 1998,
Congress again specified Scorpius funding, this time at $10 million.
The results have been impressive:
19 5,000 pound thrust engines built, each at a cost under $5,000--
establishing a benchmark cost per pound of thrust of less than $1, a
significant improvement over current engines;
19 engines test-fired including 8 each for 200 seconds of continuous
burn--the performance required to get a payload to LEO (low Earth
orbit);
the 5,000 pound thrust engine, with injector, completed and qualified
for flight;
design completed, including the Critical Design Review, for the
20,000 pound thrust engine;
the entire avionics package completed and successfully qualified at
Marshall Space Flight Center: Huntsville, Alabama;
fuel and cryogenic tanks, with liners, designed and fabricated for
the SR-1 sub-orbital vehicle;
a new test stand, designed for engines up to 100,000 pounds of
thrust; and
technical spin-offs that could benefit non-Scorpius programs as well,
such as the gas generator.
The funding requested for Fiscal Year 1999 would yield similar
results. With adequate funding in 1999, Microcosm could achieve the
following:
design, development and test Scorpius engines through 80,000 pounds
of thrust;
preliminary design and testing of the 320,000 pound thrust engine;
test flights of the sub-orbital vehicles; and
preliminary design of the light-lift orbital vehicle.
The program has been subjected to many senior technical reviews by
both government and industry experts. No significant technical problem
has been identified.
Low cost launch programs are a bargain. We have a simple choice.
Either we will continue to fall behind in our competitive position for
space launch costs and risk U.S. security through the transfer of
sensitive technologies to be launched by other countries, or we can
attain over 85% savings to taxpayers for space launch needs in the near
future. These leap-frog technologies could make space launch truly
affordable. With our support these efforts will recapture an American
industry--and jobs--now lost to foreign countries.
amendment no. 3029
(Purpose: To require efforts to continue to increase defense
burdensharing by allies)
At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1064. DEFENSE BURDENSHARING.
(a) Revised Goals for Efforts To Increase Allied
Burdensharing.--Subsection (a) of section 1221 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1935; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) Efforts To Increase Allied Burdensharing.--The
President shall seek to have each nation that has cooperative
military relations with the United States (including security
agreements, basing arrangements, or mutual participation in
multinational military organizations or operations) take one
or more of the following actions:
``(1) For any nation in which United States military
personnel are assigned to permanent duty ashore, increase its
financial contributions to the payment of the nonpersonnel
costs incurred by the United States Government for stationing
United States military personnel in that nation, with a goal
of achieving by September 30, 2000, 75 percent of such costs.
An increase in financial contributions by any nation under
this paragraph may include the elimination of taxes, fees, or
other charges levied on United States military personnel,
equipment, or facilities stationed in that nation.
``(2) Increase its annual budgetary outlays for national
defense as a percentage of its gross domestic product by 10
percent or at least to a percentage level commensurate to
that of the United States by September 30, 1999.
``(3) Increase the military assets (including personnel,
equipment, logistics, support and other resources) that it
contributes or has pledged to contribute to multinational
military activities worldwide by 10 percent by September 30,
1999.
``(4) Increase its annual budgetary outlays for foreign
assistance (funds to promote democratization, governmental
accountability
[[Page S7145]]
and transparency, economic stabilization and development,
defense economic conversion, respect for the rule of law and
internationally recognized human rights, or humanitarian
relief efforts) by 10 percent, or to provide such foreign
assistance at a minimum annual rate equal to one percent of
its gross domestic product, by September 30, 1999.''.
(b) Revised Requirement for Report on Progress in
Increasing Allied Burdensharing.--Subsection (c) of such
section is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Report on Progress in Increasing Allied
Burdensharing.--Not later than March 1, 1999, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on--
``(1) steps taken by other nations toward completing the
actions described in subsection (a);
``(2) all measures taken by the President, including those
authorized in subsection (b), to achieve the actions
described in subsection (a);
``(3) the difference between the amount allocated by other
nations for each of the actions described in subsection (a)
during the period beginning on October 1, 1996, and ending on
September 30, 1997, and during the period beginning on
October 1, 1997, and ending on September 30, 1998, or, in the
case of any nation for which the data for such periods is
inadequate, the difference between the amounts for the latest
periods for which adequate data is available; and
``(4) the budgetary savings to the United States that are
expected to accrue as a result of the steps described under
paragraph (1).''.
(c) Extension of Deadline for Report Regarding National
Security Bases for Forward Deployment and Burdensharing
Relationships.--Subsection (d)(2) of such section is amended
by striking out ``March 1, 1998'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``March 1, 1999''.
____
amendment no. 3030
(Purpose: To find findings and additional items for the report on the
continuity of essential operations at risk of failure because of
computer systems that are not year 2000 compliant)
On page 213, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Because of the way computers store and process dates,
most computers will not function properly, or at all, after
January 1, 2000, a problem that is commonly referred to as
the year 2000 problem.
(2) The United States Government is currently conducting a
massive program to identify and correct computer systems that
suffer from the year 2000 problem.
(3) The cost to the Department of Defense of correcting
this problem in its computer systems has been estimated to be
more than $1,000,000,000.
(4) Other nations have failed to initiate aggressive action
to identify and correct the year 2000 problem within their
own computers.
(5) Unless other nations initiate aggressive actions to
ensure the reliability and stability of certain
communications and strategic systems, United States
nationally security may be jeopardized.
On page 213, line 22, strike out ``(a)'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``(b)''.
On page 214, line 7, strike out ``(b)'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``(c)''.
On page 215, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
(9) The countries that have critical computer-based systems
any disruption of which, due to not being year 2000
compliant, would cause a significant potential national
security risk to the United States.
(10) A discussion of the cooperative arrangements between
the United States and other nations to assist those nations
in identifying and correcting (to the extent necessary to
meet national security interests of the United States) any
problems in their communications and strategic systems, or
other systems identified by the Secretary of Defense, that
make the systems not year 2000 compliant.
(11) A discussion of the threat posed to the national
security interests of the United States from any potential
failure of strategic systems of foreign countries that are
not year 2000 compliant.
On page 215, line 21, strike out ``(c)'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``(d)''.
On page 215, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
(e) International Cooperative Arrangements.--The Secretary
of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State
may enter into a cooperative arrangement with a
representative of any foreign government to provide for the
United States to assist the foreign government in identifying
and correcting (to the extent necessary to meet national
security interests of the United States) any problems in
communications, strategic, or other systems of that foreign
government that make the systems not year 2000 compliant.
On page 215, line 24, strike out ``(d)'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``(f)''.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce an amendment
to the Defense Authorization bill which is now before us. But first, I
would like to congratulate the members of the Armed Services Committee
for the excellent work they have done in preparing this legislation. I
know they are being asked to do more and more with less and less, and
they are having to make some very tough choices. The Committee has done
an outstanding job and they deserve to be commended for it.
I would also like to pay special tribute to the Chairman, Senator
Thurmond, who is managing this legislation for the final time. His
record of service to this country is remarkable. It is symbolic of the
greatness of this country that this paratrooper who landed in Normandy
on D-Day, who fought the tyranny of Nazi Germany and saw it defeated,
fought the tyranny of the Stalinist Soviet Union and saw it defeated,
rose to the Senate of our great nation and then to become Chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee. His experience and commitment to
our national security has strengthened democracy and peace here and
abroad. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to this great American.
Mr. President, defense spending has declined for the last 14 years,
and is now at the lowest point as a percentage of GDP since before the
Second World War. We have decreased military personnel by 39% since the
end of the Cold War. I supported these reductions during the time that
I was privileged to serve on the Armed Services Committee. At that
time, the federal budget deficit was spiraling out of control and
balancing the budget was one of my highest priorities.
I think the pendulum may be beginning to swing the other way. We now
expect to realize a significant budget surplus this year, perhaps more
than $50 billion. In light of this, it may be appropriate to review the
limits we have set on defense spending so that we can halt the annual
decreases in defense spending. Even holding the defense budget constant
in real terms would make a significant difference to all those who
serve in our armed forces.
I know that my colleagues Senator Stevens and Senator Dominici share
this concern. It has been reported that Navy Secretary Dalton believes
that the Navy cannot afford to both modernize and recapitalize our
naval forces within current fiscal guidance, placing readiness at
significant risk. I would urge all of my colleagues to recognize the
great strain we are placing on our soldiers, sailors, airmen and
marines as we continually ask them to do more while providing them with
less.
I now would like to turn to an amendment that I have introduced,
together with Senator Bennett, which deals with the Y2K problem. I
understand that this amendment will be accepted by both the majority
and the minority, and I would like to thank both sides for their
assistance in finding a formulation which is acceptable to both sides.
We now are undertaking a massive effort to deal with this problem
within the U.S. Government. The Defense Department alone has over 2800
critical systems that must be ``cured.'' The Russians, however, have
not yet determined if they have a similar problem, let alone begun to
fix it.
Given the potential impact of such a problem on military weapons
systems, it is in our national interest to work with Russia, and other
nations with similar problem, to help them identify the scope of their
Y2K problem in strategic systems and to fix it. Our amendment
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into cooperative
agreements with foreign governments to assist them in identifying and
correcting their Y2K problems in strategic and communications systems
that would otherwise threaten the national security interests of the
United States.
It would be detrimental to our interests if the Russians awoke on the
morning of January 1, 2000, with blank screens on their early warning
radars and command and control systems. What would be even worse is if
their critical systems continued to operate with false and corrupted
information. It is in both U.S. and Russian interests for our countries
to maintain the highest level of confidence in our command and control
systems. We must build this confidence through transparency and other
cooperative measures. The recent nuclear escalation on the Indian
subcontinent demonstrates the importance of mutual trust and
confidence, and the danger and instability that can
[[Page S7146]]
result when uncertainty and miscalculation arise. Assisting the
Russians with their Y2K problem is an example of cooperation that will
enhance both Russian and U.S. national security.
AMENDMENT NO. 3031
(Purpose: To modify the requirements relating to reports on the
transferability of functions of the Defense Automated Printing Service)
Strike out the matter proposed to be inserted, and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
SEC. 1064. REVIEW OF DEFENSE AUTOMATED PRINTING SERVICE
FUNCTIONS.
(a) Review Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall
provide for a review of the functions of the Defense
Automated Printing Service in accordance with this section
and submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and the Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives the matters required under subsection (d) not
later than March 31, 1999.
(b) Performance by Independent Entity.--The Secretary of
Defense shall select the General Accounting Office, an
experienced entity in the private sector, or any other entity
outside the Department of Defense to perform the review. The
Comptroller General shall perform the review if the Secretary
selects the Comptroller General to do so.
(c) Report.--The entity performing the review under this
section shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a report
that sets forth the findings and recommendations of that
entity resulting from the review. The report shall contain
the following:
(1) The functions that are inherently national security
functions and, as such, need to be performed within the
Department of Defense, together with a detailed justification
for the determination for each such function.
(2) The functions that are appropriate for transfer to
another appropriate entity to perform, including private
sector entity.
(3) Any recommended legislation and any administrative
action that is necessary for transferring or outsourcing the
functions.
(4) A discussion of the costs or savings associated with
the transfers or outsourcing.
(5) A description of the management structure of the
Defense Automated Printing Service.
(6) A list of all sites where functions of the Defense
Automated Printing Service are performed by the Defense
Automated Printing Service.
(7) The total number of the personnel employed by the
Defense Automated Printing Service and the locations where
the personnel perform the duties as employees.
(8) A description of the functions performed by the Defense
Automated Printing Service and, for each such function, the
number of employees of the Defense Automated Printing Service
that perform the function.
(9) For each site identified under paragraph (6), an
assessment of each type of equipment at the site.
(10) The type and explanation of the networking and
technology integration linking all of the sites referred to
in paragraph (6).
(11) The current and future requirements of customers of
the Defense Automated Printing Service.
(12) An assessment of the effectiveness of the current
structure of the Defense Automated Printing Service in
supporting current and future customer requirements and plans
to address any deficiencies in supporting such requirements.
(13) A description and discussion of the best business
practices that are used by the Defense Automated Printing
Service and of other best business that could be used by the
Defense Automated Printing Service.
(14) Options for maximizing the Defense Automated Printing
Service structure and services to provide the most cost
effective service to its customers.
(d) Review and Comments of Secretary of Defense.--(1) After
reviewing the report, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
the report to Congress, together with the Secretary's
comments on the report and a plan to transfer or outsource
from the Defense Automated Printing Service to another
appropriate entity the functions of the Defense Automated
Printing Service that--
(1) are not identified in the report as being inherently
national security functions; and
(2) the Secretary believes should be transferred for
performance outside the Department of Defense in accordance
with law.
(e) Extension of Requirement for Competitive Procurement of
Services.--Section 351(a) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106;
110 Stat. 266), as amended by section 351(a) of Public Law
104-201 (110 Stat. 2490) and section 387(a)(1) of Public Law
105-85 (111 Stat. 1713), is further amended by striking out
``1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``1999''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 3032
(Purpose: To increase the amount for procurement of M888, 60-
millimeter, high-explosive munitions for the Marine Corps by
$17,000,000, and to offset the increase by reducing the amounts for the
Marine Corps for operation and maintenance for initial use by
$12,000,000 and for base support by $5,000,000)
On page 14, line 23, increase the amount by $17,000,000.
On page 42, line 23, reduce the amount by $17,000,000.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this amendment to S. 2057, the Fiscal
Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act, seeks to add $17 million for the
procurement of M888, 60-millimeter, high-explosive munitions for the
Marine Corps.
The additional funds would help alleviate training constraints for
Marine Corps units due to shortages in this item, and will help reduce
the coming bow-wave of procurement requirements that we may not have
the resources to fund in future years.
I would like to clarify that funds from the Marine Corps' OPTEMPO and
base support lines, both Operations & Maintenance accounts, have been
identified to offset this additional funding. The offset draws on funds
that were authorized in excess of what was appropriated for these
particular funding lines.
Initially, I had identified Marine Corps' initial use and base
support lines as an offset for this amendment. I wish to alert the
Senate Armed Services Committee and the full Senate of this specific
change.
Lastly, it is my understanding that the Marine Corps supports this
amendment.
amendment no. 3035
(Purpose: To require a report on the peaceful employment of former
Soviet experts on weapons of mass destruction)
At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1031. REPORT ON THE PEACEFUL EMPLOYMENT OF FORMER SOVIET
EXPERTS ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than January 31, 1999, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the need for and the
feasibility of programs, other than those involving the
development or promotion of commercially viable proposals, to
further United States nonproliferation objectives regarding
former Soviet experts in ballistic missiles or weapons of
mass destruction. The report shall contain an analysis of the
following:
(1) The number of such former Soviet experts who are, or
are likely to become within the coming decade, unemployed,
underemployed, or unpaid and, therefore, at risk of accepting
export orders, contracts, or job offers from countries
developing weapons of mass destruction.
(2) The extent to which the development of nonthreatening,
commercially viable products and services, with or without
United States assistance, can reasonably be expected to
employ such former experts.
(3) The extent to which projects that do not involve the
development of commercially viable products or services could
usefully employ additional such former experts.
(4) The likely cost and benefits of a 10-year program of
United States or international assistance to projects of the
sort discussed in paragraph (3).
(b) Consultation Requirement.--The report shall be prepared
in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
Energy, and such other officials as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill,
the senior Senators from South Carolina and Michigan, for their
willingness to work with me on non-proliferation issues and to accept
two amendments that I proposed in this regard. There is a critical need
to guard against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or
related technology from the former Soviet Union, and I am very pleased
that my colleagues share that concern.
There is no more critical national security issue than how well we
handle the threat of holocaust posed by weapons of mass destruction.
The potential for such horrific destruction may well have been
increased by the end of the Cold War and the breakdown of superpower
control over other countries. And a failure to contain the risk of such
holocausts would dwarf any other foreign policy successes or failures.
War between the United States and Russia is no longer a realistic
threat, despite the size of our nuclear arsenals. The use of weapons of
mass destruction by other countries, or even by terrorist groups, is a
real threat, however, and there is a real risk that former Soviet
materials or technology will be the engine of proliferation to other
countries or groups.
No great power is as active as the United States in trying to prevent
proliferation. Nobody has as many programs as we do to detect
proliferation activities, to stop them, to pressure illegal buyers and
sellers, to develop military weapons and tactics for operations against
sites with weapons of mass destruction, and to assist the
[[Page S7147]]
former Soviet states, in particular, in safeguarding and destroying
dangerous material and in reorienting their military industry to the
civilian economy.
But the fact is, Mr. President, that we are failing to do all that we
can to stop proliferation. In particular, we are failing to reach most
of the highly-trained scientists and technicians who developed weapons
of mass destruction and ballistic missiles for the former Soviet Union.
Well over a hundred thousand such skilled personnel served the Soviet
death machine at its peak. Anywhere from ten to fifty thousand
personnel still have skills that a rogue state or terrorist group would
like to obtain, and are underpaid or unemployed today.
How can we remedy these failings? One way is to support and fully
fund our existing programs of non-proliferation assistance to the
former Soviet Union. I am pleased to say that the managers of this bill
agree with that judgment. Thus, they have accepted a Bingaman amendment
that I co-sponsored, to restore the few cuts in these programs that had
been adopted in committee mark-up.
The managers of this bill have also accepted an amendment that I
sponsored, to make available an additional $15 million for the Energy
Department's Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program and $30
million for the new ``nuclear cities'' initiative endorsed at the last
meeting of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission three months ago. This
amendment parallels one to the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act that Senator Domenici and I sponsored last week. I
am confident that it will result in these two important programs being
able to move forward effectively, rather than being a threat to each
other's existence.
As I noted on the floor last week, Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention (or IPP) is a program that creates employment opportunities
for former Soviet arms specialists by helping them develop their ideas
for commercially viable goods and services. As an idea reaches
fruition, IPP brings the arms specialists into joint ventures with
outside investors, who gradually take over the funding. For example,
thanks to IPP, a U.S. firm is working with Ukrainian scientists to
develop and market a device for decontaminating liquids. This device
will enable the Ukrainian dairy industry to produce fresh milk despite
the lingering effects of the Chernobyl reactor meltdown.
IPP had a slow start. It's hard to come up with really viable
commercial ventures, to find investors, and to make sure they can
invest safely. But IPP has begun to take off. As of this April 15,
projects had achieved completely commercial funding and 77 had found
major private co-funding. We all have chosen wisely today, to maintain
IPP's funding stream and to encourage the many weapons specialists in
the former Soviet Union who are searching for new careers in the
civilian economy.
The ``nuclear cities'' initiative is a more specialized effort to
improve employment opportunities for Russian personnel from their
nuclear weapons labs and manufacturing facilities. This initiative,
too, will focus on finding commercially viable projects and bringing in
outside investors. The challenge is to find projects that can work at
these somewhat isolated cities, which are more or less the Russian
equivalent of Los Alamos.
When the United States funds the ``nuclear cities'' initiative, it
gets two benefits. First, Russia's Minister of Atomic Energy has
announced that he will downsize their nuclear weapons establishment.
And second, by providing civilian job opportunities for some of the
personnel who are let go, we will help protect against Russian weapons
specialists accepting offers from states like Iran, Iraq, or Libya.
One problem in any program that depends upon developing commercially
viable products and services is that foreign investors are wary of
putting their funds in ventures that may fail because of confiscatory
taxes, local corruption or the difficulty of enforcing contracts. As a
result, many otherwise marketable ideas may go without the funding they
need to get off the ground and become engines of employment.
The senior Senator from Indiana and I sent a letter to the Vice
President recently to suggest that a high-level commission or advisory
committee be formed, with senior U.S. industrialists among its members,
to survey investment opportunities in the ``nuclear cities'' and
similar areas. This commission would also work with Russian officials
on improving the climate for international investment, so that an
enlarging civilian economy in Russia can provide new careers for more
former arms experts. Fifty years ago, a commission to set up the
Marshall Plan--led by an industrialist, the CEO of Studebaker--was able
to convince Western Europe to take bold steps in economic coordination.
In a similar manner, perhaps practical help from U.S. industrialists
today can galvanize Russian officials to take the steps that are needed
for international investment to jump-start their economic engines.
Even with such a commission, however, even if we maintain the
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program, and even if we add
the ``nuclear cities'' initiative, there is no way that commercially
viable ventures can employ all the tens of thousands of Russian
personnel who have worked on weapons of mass destruction. At some
point, Mr. President, we have to ask whether it is not in our national
security interest to provide broader assistance.
That is why I proposed the other amendment that the managers of this
bill have accepted, to require the Secretary of Defense to report to
Congress on this issue. Specifically, that report will tell us: (1) how
many former Soviet personnel are at risk of being candidates for
recruitment by rogue states; (2) how many can be employed in
commercially viable enterprises; (3) how many additional personnel
could be employed if we were to subsidize socially useful employment
that could not attract outside investment; and (4) what the costs and
benefits would be of a 10-year program of such subsidized employment.
I am confident that the Department of Defense will find a significant
gap between the number of Russian arms experts who are at risk and the
number who can be reached by programs that focus upon commercially
viable ventures. We have much less information, however, regarding
either the potential or the costs of a program that would provide
broader assistance. The Department of Defense report required by this
amendment, which would be prepared in consultation with the Secretary
of State and the Secretary of Energy, will thus make a significant
contribution to the ability of Congress to make sensible policy
decisions in this field.
The task of assisting the transition of the former Soviet Union from
totalitarianism to democracy, from a command economy to a market
economy, and from militarism to more peaceful pursuits is indeed
daunting. We need many programs, for no single effort will achieve all
of this. There will be disappointments along with successes. But the
stakes are so high that we dare not flinch from the challenge to assist
that transition.
Likewise, we dare not cease our efforts to ensure that former Soviet
arms experts refrain from selling their expertise to those who would
misuse it. Today's actions are not the end of this demand upon our
attention and our resources. But we can take heart from the fact that
they are measured steps in the right direction. With luck, we will come
up with the needed programs and resources in time to prevent weapons of
mass destruction from becoming a larger factor in the next century than
they have been in our own.
amendment no. 3036
(Purpose: To require a study on effective deployment of theater missle
defense systems in the Asia-Pacific) region
On page 268, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
SEC. 1064. INCREASED MISSILE THREAT IN ASIA-PACIFIC REGION.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a
study of the architecture requirements for the establishment
and operation of a theater ballistic missile defense system
in the Asia-Pacific region that would have the capability to
protect key regional allies of the United States.
(b) Report.--(1) Not later than January 1, 1999, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on National Security
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate a report containing--
(A) the results of the study conducted under subsection
(a);
[[Page S7148]]
(B) the factors used to obtain such results; and
(C) a description of any existing United States missile
defense system that could be transferred to key allies of the
United States in the Asia-Pacific region to provide for their
self-defense against limited ballistic missile attacks.
(2) The report shall be submitted in both classified and
unclassified form.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleagues for their
support of the Kyl-Murkowski amendment which is intended to foster
increased missile defense cooperation between the United States and our
key allies in the Asia-Pacific region.
U.S. forces and allies in the Asia-Pacific region face a growing
missile threat from China and North Korea. China has embarked on a
program to modernize its theater and strategic missile programs and
Beijing has shown a willingness to use ballistic missiles to intimidate
its neighbors. During Taiwan's national legislative elections in 1995,
China fixed six M-9 ballistic missiles to an area bout 100 miles north
of the island. Less than a year later, on the eve of Taiwan's first
democratic presidential election, China again launched M-9 missiles to
areas within 30 miles north and south of the island, establishing a
virtual blockade of Taiwan's two primary ports.
North Korea's missile program is also becoming more advanced.
According to a recent Defense Department report, North Korea has
deployed several hundred Scud missiles that are capable of reaching
targets in South Korea. The North has started to deploy the No Dong
missile, which will have sufficient range to target nearly all of
Japan, and is continuing to develop a longer-range ballistic missile
that will be capable of reaching Alaska and Hawaii.
North Korea's missile program shows no signs of slowing down. In
fact, Pyongyang recently stated that it would continue to develop,
produce, and sell ballistic missiles unless the U.S. lifts economic
sanctions and compensates the regime for lost earnings from missile
exports. On June 16th, the official Korean Central News Agency
announced, ``We will continue developing, testing, and deploying
missiles. If the United States really wants to prevent our missile
export, it should lift the economic embargo as early as possible and
make a compensation for the losses to be caused by discontinued missile
export. Our missile export is aimed at obtaining foreign money, which
we need at present.''
Theater missile defenses are vitally needed to protect American
forces and allies in the Asia-Pacific region. This amendment would
require the Administration to conduct a study of how the U.S. could
best cooperate with key allies in the region such as Taiwan, South
Korea, and Japan to establish and operate effective theater missile
defenses.
I would also note that missile defenses are purely defensive items
and can only be used to intercept incoming missiles. Therefore, in may
view, the sale of ballistic missile defenses to Taiwan is consistent
with the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act, which states that
``the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles
and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable
Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.''
Mr. President, in closing I would like to thank Senator Murkowski for
working with me on this initiative and would like to thank my
colleagues again for their support of this amendment, which I hope will
lay the groundwork for effective cooperation with our allies to
confront a real and growing missile threat in the region.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Senator Kyl and I have sponsored an
amendment which would require the Secretary of Defense to study the
issue of effective deployment of a theater missile defense system for
the Asia-Pacific region. This is obviously needed to protect our troops
in Okinawa and on the Korean peninsula. This amendment would further
require that Korea, Japan and Taiwan be allowed to purchase such a
system from the United States, should they desire. I suspect that all
of them would be extremely interested in such a defense system, Mr.
President, and I think it is incumbent upon us to extend this
protection to them.
A form of this legislation has already passed the House--albeit the
House version was more specific in relating just to Taiwan. This
legislation makes sense, is deeply needed, and would be a good show of
support, meaningful support, to our allies in Korea, Japan and Taiwan.
I thank the managers of the bill for agreeing to accept a scaled down
version of this amendment. I had hoped that the entire version would
have been eagerly accepted by colleagues on both sides of the aisle,
but clearly there are other issues at play in the Senate at this time.
I want the Record to reflect that this scaled down version in no way
reflects a diminished commitment to Taiwan. Quite the contrary. This
amendment should be seen as a victory--because it is. It is one of the
only provisions to be adopted into this bill addressing ballistic
missile defense, and one of the only provisions adopted which addresses
security issues in the Asian theater. And it is perhaps the only
provision which addresses China and Taiwan.
Our commitment to Taiwan is unwavering. As President Clinton goes to
China, this amendment reiterates our support for the people of Taiwan,
and the government of Taiwan. The question of Taiwan must only be
resolved through peaceful means--and I again call on President Clinton
to raise the issue of renouncing the threat of the use of force against
Taiwan when he meets with President Jiang in Beijing.
The Chinese missile tests off the coast of Taiwan in the Spring of
1996 brought our relations with China to the brink of conflict. Their
actions were reprehensible and intended only to intimidate, and I think
test, whether the United States was serious on the issue of Taiwan.
They learned that we are, that the United States is unequivocal on the
issue of Taiwan's security, and here right to a free and democratic
society. We will not condone efforts to intimidate national free
elections; the people on Taiwan have chosen to live a life of freedom--
we commend them and support them in this.
Finally, Mr. President, at a time when the United States is being
pressured to reduce its forces in Asia, ballistic missile defense for
Korea, Japan and Taiwan is even more important. if we reduce our forces
in Asia, make no mistake--there will be a security void, a vacuum. Our
amendment is intended to prevent a vacuum; to reduce the impact of
missile development by China, North Korea and perhaps others in the
region. Mr. President, the Loral Space communications issue has shown
us one thing--that if our policies, even by accident, allow others to
improve their missile capabilities, it is incumbent upon us to provide
our allies with the support they need to defend themselves. Be
extending ballistic missile protection to Taiwan, we are doing just
that.
AMENDMENT NO. 3037
(Purpose: To require the submission of a plan and design relating to
the relocation of the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque, New
Mexico)
On page 397, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 3137. RELOCATION OF NATIONAL ATOMIC MUSEUM, ALBUQUERQUE,
NEW MEXICO.
The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Defense
Committees of Congress a plan for the design, construction,
and relocation of the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
____
amendment no. 3038
(Purpose: Cooperation between the Department of the Army and the
Environmental Protection Agency in meeting Chemical Weapons Convention
requirements to destroy chemical stockpile)
The Senate finds that:
(1) Compliance with international obligations to destroy
the U.S. chemical stockpile by April 28, 2007, as required
under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CW), is a national
priority.
(2) The President should ensure that the Department of
Defense and the Department of the Army receive all necessary
assistance from federal agencies in expediting and
accelerating the destruction of the lethal chemical
stockpile.
(3) The Environmental Protection Agency, as one of the
federal agencies with responsibilities to assist the
Department of Defense and the Department of the Army, has
asserted that is not adequately funded to provide, or meet
its national responsibilities under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCA) permitting requirements, in order to
assist the U.S. government in meeting its international
obligations to destroy its lethal chemical stockpile.
[[Page S7149]]
(4) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should work
in concert with the State and local governments in this
process, and that they should properly budget for this
process.
Report Required. The Department of Defense, in coordination
with the Environmental Protection Agency, shall report to the
congressional defense committees by April 1, 1999, on the
following:
(1) Responsibilities associated with obligations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitting
process related to U.S. international obligations under the
CWC to destroy the U.S. chemical stockpile;
(2) Technical assistance provided by the EPA to its
regional offices and the States and local governments in the
permitting process, and how that assistance facilitates the
issuance of the environmental permits at the various sites;
(3) Responsibility of the Department of Defense to provide
funding to the EPA, for the facilitation of meetings of the
National Chemical Agent Demilitarization Workgroup, meetings
between the Office of Solid Waste and the affected EPA
Regional Offices and States; and meetings between the Office
of Solid Waste, the Program Manager for Chemical
Demilitarization and the Department of Defense; and,
(4) Responsibility of the Department of Defense and the
Department of the Army to provide funds to the Environmental
Protection Agency to hire full-time equivalents to assist in
the formulation of RCRA permits.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise with an amendment to the
Department of Defense Authorization Bill which relates to our chemical
weapons demilitarization program. I thank the managers of this bill,
and the professional staff at the Senate Armed Services Committee for
agreeing to adopt this amendment.
This is a straightforward amendment, but may be on track to save us a
lot of time and money with respect to our chemical weapons stockpile
demilitarization program. Over the life of the stockpile
demilitarization program which as gone from about $2 billion to $15
billion, to perhaps $16 billion as we speak. The anticipated time it
will take to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention has also been
extended, and it is increasingly unlikely that we will make the April
29, 2007 deadline which we agreed to here in the Senate last year.
Mr. President, my amendment is intended to help save time and money
in this program. It simply requires that the Department of the Army and
the EPA be allied instead of adversaries. It requires that the
Secretary of the Army sit down with the Administrator of the EPA and
report back to Congress on how these departments can work together to
help expedite the permits which are necessary for the demilitarization
program. Most of these permits are pursuant to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). While the EPA does not have a
role issuing permits, it does act in an advisory capacity to the
various State governments which review and issue permits.
Since the States are likely to follow the feds, cooperation between
the Army and the EPA is critical. Let's simply make certain that all
arms of the federal government are cooperating. Mr. President, we aim
to be rid of these weapons by the year 2007. If we are serious about
meeting this deadline, we need to do all we can now to give the program
stewards the tools they need to get the job done.
Again, I thank the bill managers for agreeing to adopt this
amendment.
amendment no. 3039
(Purpose: To amend title 10, United States Code, with respect to the
administration of certain drugs to members of the Armed Forces without
the informed consent of the members)
At the end of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 708. PROCESS FOR WAIVING INFORMED CONSENT REQUIREMENT
FOR ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN DRUGS TO MEMBERS
OF ARMED FORCES.
(a) Limitation and Waiver.--(1) Section 1107 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
(B) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new
subsection (f):
``(f) Limitation and Waiver.--(1) An investigational new
drug or a drug unapproved for its applied use may not be
administered to a member of the armed forces pursuant to a
request or requirement referred to in subsection (a) unless--
``(A) the member provides prior consent to receive the drug
in accordance with the requirements imposed under the
regulations required under paragraph (4) of section 505(i) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(i));
or
``(B) the Secretary obtains--
``(i) under such section a waiver of such requirements; and
``(ii) a written statement that the President concurs in
the determination of the Secretary required under paragraph
(2) and with the Secretary's request for the waiver.
``(2) The Secretary of Defense may request a waiver
referred to in paragraph (1)(B) in the case of any request or
requirement to administer a drug under this section if the
Secretary determines that obtaining consent is not feasible,
is contrary to the best interests of the members involved, or
is not in the best interests of national security. Only the
Secretary may exercise the authority to make the request for
the Department of Defense, and the Secretary may not delegate
that authority.
``(3) The Secretary shall submit to the chairman and
ranking minority member of each congressional defense
committee a notification of each waiver granted pursuant to a
request of the Secretary under paragraph (2), together with
the concurrence of the President under paragraph (1)(B) that
relates to the waiver and the justification for the request
or requirement under subsection (a) for a member to receive
the drug covered by the waiver.
``(4) In this subsection, the term `congressional defense
committee' means each of the following:
``(A) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.
``(B) The Committee on National Security and the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.''.
(2) The requirements for a concurrence of the President and
a notification of committees of Congress that are set forth
in section 1107(f) of title 10, United States Code (as added
by paragraph (1)(B)) shall apply with respect to--
(A) each waiver of the requirement for prior consent
imposed under the regulations required under paragraph (4) of
section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(or under any antecedent provision of law or regulations)
that--
(i) has been granted under that section (or antecedent
provision of law or regulations) before the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(ii) is applied after that date; and
(B) each waiver of such requirement that is granted on or
after that date.
(b) Time and Form of Notice.--(1) Subsection (b) of such
section is amended by striking out ``, if practicable'' and
all that follows through ``first administered to the
member''.
(2) Subsection (c) of such section is amended by striking
out ``unless the Secretary of Defense determines'' and all
that follows through ``alternative method''.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Committee has accepted
my amendment to provide greater oversight and accountability in those
instances when the Secretary of Defense determines that U.S. troops
would be best protected by the administration of investigational drugs
in a wartime situation. Our forces increasingly face the threat of
chemical and biological weapons being used on the battlefield. It may
therefore be necessary, in order to protect them from these terrible
weapons, to require them to take medicines and drugs to counteract or
prevent these threats from being used to devastating effect. I think
that we can all agree that the Secretary of Defense should take all
reasonable precautions to protect U.S. troops in these situations, and
that for a number of reasons, it may not be possible, wise, or safe to
make public that decision by asking for the informed consent of each
and every soldier, sailor, or airman before those preventative measures
are administered.
However, I believe that it is also reasonable to take steps to ensure
that when the Department of Defense thinks a particular drug, either
investigational or used in a new way, should be administered without
the informed consent of the troops, that such a decision is vetted very
carefully, and that such decisions are recorded. Therefore, my
amendment adds a new and higher level of scrutiny to the waiver
process. My amendment requires that the President, the Commander in
Chief, concurs in the decision of the Department of Defense to
administer such drugs. It puts the top civilian in charge of the
military in the loop, and it requires that these decisions to
administer drugs to our troops are reported to the Congress.
Unfortunately, some examples from history, such as the exposure of
troops to atmospheric atomic tests, and other examples of making U.S.
military men and women ``guinea pigs,'' have left lingering concerns
about leaving this decision making process entirely in the hands of the
military. I hope that my amendment, by bringing civilian leaders and
representatives of the people into the process, will allay concerns
[[Page S7150]]
that U.S. troops will ever be given drugs for any reason other than to
protect them from real and dangerous threats.
AMENDMENT NO. 3040
(Purpose: To authorize the conveyance of utility systems at Lone Star
Army Ammunition Plant, Texas)
On page 342, below line 22, add the following:
SEC. 2827. CONVEYANCE OF UTILITY SYSTEMS, LONE STAR ARMY
AMMUNITION PLANT, TEXAS.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey at fair market value all right, title, and interest of
the United States in and to any utility system, or part
thereof, including any real property associated with such
system, at the Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texas, to the
redevelopment authority for the Red River Army Depot, Texas,
in conjunction with the disposal of property at the Depot
under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990
(part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687
note).
(b) Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) may be
construed to prohibit or otherwise limit the Secretary from
conveying any utility system referred to in that subsection
under any other provision of law, including section 2688 of
title 10, United States Code.
(c) Utility System Defined.--In this section, the term
``utility system'' has the meaning given that term in section
2688(g) of title 10, United States Code.
Mr. THURMOND. I ask unanimous consent the amendments be agreed to en
bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
I further ask that statements of explanation for each amendment be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, each of these amendments has been cleared
by us. Many of these are amendments from this side of the aisle and of
course many from the Republican side of the aisle. But they have all
been cleared. We support the adoption of these amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments nos. 2783, 2791 as modified, 2792 as modified, 2823,
2867 as modified, 2904 as modified, 2907, 2909 as modified, 2923 as
modified, 2976 as modified, 3017 through 3032, 3035 through 3040, en
bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2728
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I can have just 30 seconds on the Burns
amendment? I want to commend the Senator from Montana on his amendment.
While there may be priorities which I would give a higher priority to,
including readiness, this amendment fits the needs of our military
personnel and meets the tests that the Armed Services Committee has set
for military construction projects.
I thank him for meeting those criteria. We try to apply those
criteria across the board, and here is what they are--if I can just
take 30 seconds. Each one of Senator Burns' projects is contained in
the Defense Department's Future Year's Defense Program, FYDP; they are
all considered mission essential by the Defense Department; they are
consistent with past Base Closure Commission decisions; and they are
all projects that can be executed in fiscal year 1999.
I thank him for the care with which he has selected these quality-of-
life projects. They all meet these criteria.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the committee
and manager of this bill. If he hadn't developed those criteria, we
could not have done what we have done in the last 2 years in taking $2
billion out of this and still provide for the needs of our military
people on base. We could not have done that.
So, there are a lot of people to thank for developing those criteria,
for working with us, and for having the discipline to stay within those
criteria, whenever we recommend these projects. So I thank my good
friend from Michigan.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we can, I think, momentarily proceed to
the rollcall votes that are still required. It is likely that at least
two of them are going to be vitiated, which I think is good news to
all.
I want to make certain that the McCain second-degree amendment to the
Burns amendment, limited to 5 minutes under the control of Senator
McCain and 10 minutes under the control of Senator Stevens, is
reserved, and that time is reserved for the Senator from Arizona prior
to the vote on the Burns amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2808
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the Feingold amendment with 2 minutes, equally divided.
Who yields time?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum because I
note the absence of Senator Feingold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. We can now proceed pursuant to the unanimous consent
request to the first rollcall vote.
Mr. LEVIN. To clarify the Record, the unanimous consent agreement did
provide for time on the Feingold amendment, and that time was used with
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Feingold
amendment No. 2808. 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 family.
I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is
absent because of illness.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn),
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is absent
due to a family illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Wyden) would vote ``aye.''
The result was announced--yeas 20, nays 72, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 178 Leg.]
YEAS--20
Biden
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Daschle
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Reid
Sarbanes
Wellstone
NAYS--72
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Robb
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
NOT VOTING--8
Akaka
Baucus
Glenn
Hutchinson
Rockefeller
Roth
Specter
Wyden
The amendment (No. 2808) was rejected.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the legislation for
getting the agreement that has been entered into in an effort to get a
vote at a reasonable time so we can conclude this matter before the
night is out.
I ask unanimous consent the remaining votes in this series be limited
to 10
[[Page S7151]]
minutes in length. That is, votes on the Bumpers amendment, Senator
Byrd's amendment, and final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, we turn to the Bumpers amendment. We
will have the 10-minute rollcall vote, preceded by 1 minute to Senator
Bumpers and 1 minute to Senator Coats.
I wish to advise the Senate that following the Bumpers amendment
there will be a period not to exceed 25 minutes allocated to the
following Senators to speak: Senator Levin, Senator Snowe, Senator
Kennedy, Senator Coats, Senator Byrd. This is preceding the Byrd
amendment. It is hoped that not all of that time will be used. So there
will be a period following the Bumpers amendment, not to exceed 25
minutes.
I suggest the Chair recognize the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers,
for the purpose of speaking on his amendment.
Amendment No. 3012
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, we are embarked on buying the most
expensive fighter plane in the history of the United States. As a
matter of fact, three times more expensive than any fighter plane in
the history of the United States, the F-22, $182 million each, $62
billion total--which will surely go to $100 to $125 billion before we
are finished.
When we first started talking about it, the Air Force said we will
test this plane, preproduction, 1,400 hours. In 1997, they said no, 600
hours. Now this bill says 183 hours, if the Secretary will certify a
couple of little deals. You wouldn't buy a golf cart that hadn't been
tested more than 183 hours.
We are going right down the B-1, B-2 lane. I can tell you, we are
headed for big-time trouble. All I want to say is, not only is this
plane very expensive, it is simply not going to work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this may sound surprising, but the
committee agrees with Senator Bumpers. We have studied this and we
absolutely have language in this bill that requires testing before we
buy or before we fly. We have carefully worked out a compromise on this
issue with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Air Force,
contractors, Members of Congress--those for the F-22 and those against
the F-22--to ensure adequate testing, but also to do so in a way that
doesn't add unnecessary costs--some estimated at more than billions of
dollars by delayed production--by unnecessary testing. The Secretary of
Defense has to certify before we can go forward.
We urge people to support the committee position. We studied this and
we agree with Senator Bumpers: More testing before we fly--but not as
much as Senator Bumpers thinks we need.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant 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 family.
I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is
absent because of illness.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn),
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is absent
due to a family illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Wyden) would vote ``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 19, nays 73, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 179 Leg.]
YEAS--19
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Grams
Grassley
Harkin
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Moseley-Braun
Wellstone
NAYS--73
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
NOT VOTING--8
Akaka
Baucus
Glenn
Hutchinson
Rockefeller
Roth
Specter
Wyden
The amendment (No. 3012) was rejected.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was rejected.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are making great progress. I think
momentarily we can dispose of a request for the need for a rollcall
vote.
Amendment No. 3033 and Amendment No. 3034 En Bloc
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that two
amendments I now send to the desk be considered, en bloc, the reading
of the amendments be waived, that the amendments be agreed to, the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements
relating to any of these amendments appear at this point in the Record.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, they have been cleared on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (No. 3033 and 3034) en bloc were agreed to.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3033
(Purpose: Relating to the pharmacy benefit available under the health
care demonstration projects with respect to medicare-eligible
beneficiaries of the military health care system)
On page 157, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
The Program under this Section will allow retail to compete
for services in delivery of Pharmacy benefits without
increasing costs to the government or the beneficiaries.
____
amendment no. 3034
(Purpose: To modify the land conveyance authority with respect to
Finley Air Force Station, Finley, North Dakota)
On page 342, below line 22, add the following:
SEC. 2827. MODIFICATION OF LAND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY, FINLEY
AIR FORCE STATION, FINLEY, NORTH DAKOTA.
Section 2835 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1995 (division B of Public Law 103-337; 108
Stat. 3063) is amended--
(1) by striking out subsections (a), (b), and (c) and
inserting in lieu thereof the following new subsections (a)
(b), and (c):
``(a) Conveyance Authorized.--(1) The Secretary of the Air
Force may convey, without consideration, to the City of
Finley, North Dakota (in this section referred to as the
`City'), all right, title, and interest of the United States
in and to the parcels of real property, including any
improvements thereon, in the vicinity of Finley, North
Dakota, described in paragraph (2).
``(2) The real property referred to in paragraph (1) is the
following:
``(A) A parcel of approximately 14 acres that served as the
support complex of the Finley Air Force Station and Radar
Site.
``(B) A parcel of approximately 57 acres known as the
Finley Air Force Station Complex.
``(C) A parcel of approximately 6 acres that includes a
well site and wastewater treatment system.
``(3) The purpose of the conveyance authorized by paragraph
(1) is to encourage and facilitate the economic redevelopment
of Finley, North Dakota, following the closure of the Finley
Air Force Station and Radar Site.
``(b) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines at any time
that the real property conveyed under subsection (a) is not
being used for purposes of the economic development of
Finley, North Dakota, all right,
[[Page S7152]]
title, and interest in and to the property, including any
improvements thereon, shall revert to the United States, and
the United States shall have the right of immediate entry
thereon.''; and
(c) Abatement.--The Secretary of the Air Force may, prior
to conveyance, abate any hazardous substances in the
improvements to be conveyed.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Oklahoma be recognized for not to exceed 2 minutes, followed by
the Senator from North Carolina not to exceed 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield to the Senator from North Carolina.
Amendment No. 3014, As Modified
(Purpose: To authorize, with an offset, $8,300,000 for the construction
of the National Guard Military Educational Facility at Fort Bragg,
North Carolina)
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a
modified version of my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Faircloth) proposes an
amendment numbered 3014, as modified.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. 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, as modified, is as follows:
On page 231, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
SEC. 2603. NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY EDUCATIONAL FACILITY, FORT
BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amount
authorized to be appropriated by section 2601(1)(A),
$1,000,000 may be available for purposes of planning and
design of the National Guard Military Educational Facility at
Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this amendment is modified to provide
$1 million for design money for Fort Bragg for a National Guard
facility.
I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, as the chairman
of the Readiness Committee, we have approved this, and we appreciate
very much the way that the Senator from North Carolina has been willing
to go into the planning phase so that we will have a chance to go into
this project in an orderly fashion. And the funding should not be a
problem, because it will be used with existing funds from the National
Guard.
I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank Senator Inhofe. I thank Senators Warner and
Thurmond for their help.
Since the amendment is now accepted on both sides, the majority and
the minority, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the planned rollcall
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I make inquiry of the Senator from
Virginia. He and I have discussed this question. It is my understanding
that the authorization here is discretionary.
No. 1, that the words ``may be available'' are now in instead of
``shall''.
No. 2, not only is it discretionary so that if the Secretary chooses
to do the design, then something also will be forthcoming.
It is my understanding that this amendment is not only discretionary,
but does not commit us to the construction of this project.
I want to ask the Senator from Virginia is my understanding correct?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator's understanding is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and thank the Senators who were involved
in working this out, the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator
from Oklahoma.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3014), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. I want to commend the able Senator from North Carolina
for offering this amendment. Fort Bragg is the logical place for this
National Guard Armory. I appreciate his bringing this matter up. It not
only concerns my State but many other States, too. The Senator from
North Carolina has done a good job, and we are proud of him.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank the chairman, Senator Thurmond.
Amendment No. 3011
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent request,
we will proceed to the Byrd amendment. The 25 minutes allocated for
such debate as may be required are allocated as follows:
No more than 5 minutes for Senator Levin, no more than 5 minutes for
Senator Snowe, no more than 5 minutes for Senator Kempthorne, no more
than 5 minutes for Senator Coats, and, the concluding speaker, no more
than 5 minutes for Senator Byrd.
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I note the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest we proceed to the debate on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the order designated by my unanimous
consent request--and I now ask that that be adopted. I don't think
there is an objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in addition to the five speakers noted, I
would add a request on that unanimous consent that Senator Robb of
Virginia be granted 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment before us goes beyond the
amendment which we considered yesterday.
Yesterday, there was a debate on an amendment of Senator Brownback
which related to the question of barracks. The amendment before us
today revisits that issue, and I will come to that in a moment. It goes
beyond that to require segregated training for our recruits. This is
not a pure revisit of yesterday's amendment that was offered by the
Senator from Kansas. We are now talking about both the barracks issue
and the requirement in the Byrd amendment for segregated training.
Now, our top uniformed officials have written us strongly opposing
this amendment. In a moment I am going to read from the letter of the
Chief of Staff of the Army, General Reimer, who wrote to Strom
Thurmond, our great chairman, on May 19, about this issue. But before I
quote from his letter, I want to emphasize that what we are being told
here is not a matter of political correctness; this is a question of a
commander's responsibilities that General Reimer is talking to us
about. And this is what General Reimer wrote:
The company commanders of the training companies are
responsible for everything their units do or fail to do.
Segregating their units--
Segregating their units--
into gender-unique platoons for training and billeting the
soldiers by gender in separate buildings will degrade the
commander's ability to command and control his or her unit.
We do not want to make the commander's responsibilities more
difficult or the drill sergeant's duties more challenging
than they already are.
This is part of a letter from General Reimer.
Now, the top enlisted members of each of the services, each of the
services--and these are the senior advisers
[[Page S7153]]
relative to the welfare of enlisted members--have written us on June 17
saying the following:
Each time our Nation has asked the Army, Navy, Air Force or
Marines to do a job, it has been done. Men and women
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines accomplish the tasks
asked of them every day in places like Bosnia, Haiti,
southwest Asia, and the Far East. Their many successes in our
gender-integrated, all-volunteer force is a direct result
of the training the services currently provide.
A direct result of the training that these recruits get--and that
training is gender-integrated training.
This amendment would end that--not only end it against the
recommendation of our top uniformed officials and officers; it would
end it prematurely and precipitously.
Last year, we appointed a commission, the Congress appointed a
commission. We picked 10 people on this commission to review the
recommendations of the Kassebaum commission. That was our choice, and
those citizens are now serving. They are serving at our request,
reviewing the very recommendations that this amendment would put into
law before that review can take place.
I want to read from that part of last year's defense authorization
bill. It says that the commission--again I emphasize, the commission
that we created, we put into place, we appointed--this commission
shall:
Consider issues regarding the personal relationships of
members of the Armed Forces as follows:
And No. 3 is:
To assess the reports of the independent panel, the
Department of Defense task force, and the review of existing
guidance on fraternization that has been required by the
Secretary of Defense.
Just last year we created a commission, and one of its explicit
duties is to review the Kassebaum commission's recommendations. A
number of those recommendations are not acceptable to the uniformed
military, including the ones relative to training.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator's 5 minutes have
expired.
Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent request,
Senators Levin, Snowe, Kempthorne, Coats, and Byrd are allocated time
not to exceed 5 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe we had an understanding
informally that that time would be alternated between persons in
opposition and support, so that someone in support of the Byrd
amendment, it seems to me, should now be the person recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. WARNER. I say to the Senator from Michigan, I think we had better
proceed and the Senator from Maine is now next.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair.
The Byrd amendment goes even further than the amendment that was
offered by the Senator from Kansas last night which we rejected by a
vote of 56 to 37.
The Byrd amendment would essentially eliminate all gender-integrated
training at basic levels. The decision we made last night was to uphold
the congressional commission that was created on military training and
gender-related issues to complete its assessment and to report back to
this Congress in March of 1999.
This commission was created by Congress last year with the active
cosponsorship of the Senator from West Virginia--in fact, in deference
to the position he held on the issue of gender-integrated training.
This commission is made up of 10 distinguished individuals who are
selected by both the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the
House National Security Committee that will examine a myriad of gender-
related issues and the relationship that gender-integrated adds to our
performance levels, to readiness and cohesion and to the morale of our
All Volunteer Force. Will we permit this panel of experts to deliberate
on the views and the experiences of the commanders in the field, or are
we going to decide this evening to legislate with an instant result
through the Byrd amendment that defies the views of the Secretary of
Defense, to the service chiefs of the Air Force, the Navy and the Army,
the training commanders of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, the
senior noncommissioned officers of the Army, the Navy and the Air
Force, or the Association of the U.S. Army, or every active duty
service member who has testified before the Senate Armed Services
Committee over the last 2 years.
Yesterday, we chose the path of deliberation by a commission of our
own design, rather than imposing on the military another set of
regulations without the benefit of testimony from the field.
The position of many of the military, including all of our top level
military officers, support gender-integrated training, because they
believe it is an anchor of that readiness. Far from an invention of
social policy activists, they recognize that it is an absolute
necessity in a military that cannot maintain an effective and efficient
volunteer force without the contributions of our women in uniform. And
it is a force multiplier, teaching service members the blend of
operational skills, the codes of personal behavior necessary to our
gender-neutral position, which is to win wars.
Last night, we upheld the integrity of the commission that was
created by this Congress.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order? There are too many
conversations going on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator is entitled to be heard.
Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine will proceed.
Ms. SNOWE. Last night, we upheld the decision to uphold the integrity
of the commission that we created that includes two retired Marine
Corps generals, a retired master sergeant, two military sociologists,
the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management and the
former Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Personnel.
I urge Members of this Senate to reject the Byrd amendment and to
support the views of those of us, including the Senator from West
Virginia, that we should have a commission to provide an independent
evaluation and analysis of gender-integrated training, and the
importance of it to the readiness and the cohesiveness of our armed
services.
I urge the Senate to reject the Byrd amendment, that we confirm the
action that was taken last year by this Congress, which was to create
this commission, and to reaffirm the vote that was taken last night to
support the commission in its work and to report back to this Congress.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho has 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I offer my comments in my capacity as
the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on
Personnel. I have the utmost and profound respect for Senator Byrd, a
man of tremendous integrity and motivation.
Last year, when we established the commission that would deal with
these issues that are very critical issues dealing with the military,
the legislation which established it was an amendment that was crafted
by Senator Byrd and by myself. I cannot turn my back on that commission
at this point.
A few weeks ago, there was a situation among those very talented
commission members where some of them walked away. It looked as though
the commission was going to collapse. I met with them, Senator Cleland
met with them, Congressman Buyer met with them, and we urged them,
because of the magnitude of the issues that they would be dealing with,
that they come back together, give us guidance.
For me to now say once you have been put back together, we are going
to go ahead now with legislation, hope you concur--I really think if we
go forward with this, we ought to consider disbanding the commission.
Last night, in the course of debate, Senator Enzi made a very
interesting point, and that was with regard to how many meters a
grenade could be thrown and the standards by which a
[[Page S7154]]
female would be required to throw the grenade versus how many meters a
male soldier would be required to throw the grenade, and that there
were differences and should there be differences.
I ask my colleagues in the U.S. Senate, do you want to get into that
debate? Do you really think we ought to be getting down to the details
of how many meters a grenade should be thrown by a male soldier versus
a female soldier, or are we going just a little too far in
micromanaging? That is my concern. That is why on this commission we
have outstanding individuals. We have retired Marine Corps generals, a
sergeant major from the Army--we have folks who have been there. The
physical training--how many push-ups should a man do versus a woman? Do
you want to debate that? Do you want to get into that detail?
We have a commission that has been appointed to do this. If that is
not what we intended, the wisdom of this body that last year affirmed
that commission, then we should have said so. We should have had this
debate last year. We should have been up front about it, because if we
are going to do this, if I were a commission member, I would say,
``Here's my resignation.''
I don't think that is what we are about, Mr. President. One of the
things which I mentioned to that commission in the charge is do not
ever, ever consider delivering to us, to this U.S. Senate, to the House
of Representatives, what is, in your estimation, politically correct.
We do not want to know what is politically correct with regard to the
military of the United States. You tell us what is militarily correct
for those men and women who wear the uniform. Don't tell us what is
politically correct. This is not a social laboratory. This is the
military. The courts have upheld that it is the military and things can
be different.
So let's do what is right, and let's not now make this U.S. Senate
the governing body of all the details of how far the grenade should be
thrown by a female soldier versus a male soldier, how many sit-ups they
should do. We can enact the overall policy, but we have put talented
people in place in the commission to do so.
Please do not undo what you did last year. If you do, then ask
yourselves, were we wrong last year? Was this deliberative body wrong,
and we are admitting a mistake? I don't think so.
I must, again, in my capacity as the chairman of the Personnel
Subcommittee, support the commission which I helped create, because I
have a belief that they will come back with recommendations which may
well totally affirm what Senator Byrd is advocating tonight, totally
affirm what Senator Brownback was advocating last night, perhaps even
farther. But unless you want to get into how far to toss a grenade, I
ask you not to pull the pin here tonight. And with that, I respectfully
and regretfully have to oppose Senator Byrd's amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this is an emotional subject, a difficult
subject. I am former chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee and still a
member of that subcommittee. And it is an issue at which I have looked
and studied and struggled with for some time.
I have come to an opposite conclusion of some of my friends, and I
want to tell you why I have. First of all, everyone needs to understand
the Byrd amendment is not an effort to return to segregated military
units. It is simply designed to say that at that initial entry point,
we are dealing with a situation that involves young people, many coming
out of very disruptive backgrounds, many in a very vulnerable position.
And we have seen--tragically seen--some exploitation of that, which is
wrong and absolutely needs to be handled in the most direct way and
that sends out a very clear signal that we have zero tolerance on this.
But I want to make clear, nevertheless, that the situation we are
dealing with in this amendment is with young people at their initial
entry point.
Now, we do not need another commission. We enacted a commission
because I think a lot of Members did not have any faith that the DOD-
appointed commission would give an objective view.
I think everyone was surprised, including the Secretary of Defense,
when the commission, led by our former colleague, Senator Kassebaum,
came back with the conclusion and the recommendation that we ought to
have segregated training at that initial entry point, and then that a
merger of those two separate units of male and female trainees at the
next level of their training. The question is, Why? Why did that
commission come back with that recommendation to the surprise of
everyone, including, I think, the Secretary of Defense?
The reason is that the Kassebaum commission went and visited those
same sites that I have gone and visited. And they talked to female and
male trainees, and male drill instructors and female drill instructors.
And they came away with the inescapable conclusion that I think any of
us would, or at least most of us would if we went and asked the
females, asked the women and men, asked the people at that initial
entry point what they preferred, what they thought worked, what was
best?
I went to Fort Jackson where the Army trains with integrated male-
female training. About 30 percent of the females do not have female
drill sergeants in their platoons. They have all male drill sergeants.
And those females said, ``We want female drill sergeants.'' Then I went
to Parris Island, and at Parris Island, the female marines said, ``This
is the best thing that ever happened to me to be associated with a
mentor who can provide me guidance as a young lady in how to deal with
these questions, how to deal with these kinds of decisions, how to deal
with these tough situations, how to deal with this pressure, how to
deal with this demanding training. It prepares me.''
I cannot say it better than the letter that was forwarded by a female
corporal in the Armed Forces. And it reads:
`Sir: . . . This is very distressing news to me and my
fellow women marines. There is no way I would ever have made
it through basic training with men present. I experienced
mixed boot camp for just a few days while in basic training.
It was the worst training days we had. I am all for equality,
but this is madness. With no disrespect to the Army, the
problems they have had [ought to] be proof [of this madness].
I can honestly say that if I had it to do over again and
basic training was mixed gender, there is no way I would do
it. I would not make it, not with the level of dedication and
concentration it took when there were only females. I can't
imagine having to deal with the underlying sexual tension,
the jealousy, and unconscious way I would feel every day.'
I am convinced that any of us who would take the time to go and visit
the women marines in their initial training at Parris Island would feel
as proud as any American would ever feel about the abilities of women
coming out of sometimes very, very difficult situations, gaining the
self-esteem and bonding together with their female drill instructors
and each other, and being prepared to move on to that next stage in
their training.
And if you listened and asked them, literally to a person, they told
me--this entire company of women marines told me-- ``This is the way it
ought to be initially. Then we're prepared to move on in our advanced
training and integrate with the men. But we wouldn't give up this
experience for anything in the world. This is the way we ought to be
trained.''
The Marine Corps model is a model that works. It has demonstrated its
effectiveness. The other services are struggling to make it work,
without the requisite number of female instructors, and with a very
uncomfortable situation.
So why not take a model that works and why not follow the
recommendations of the commission that has already been in place,
appointed by the Secretary of Defense, headed up by our former
colleague, Senator Kassebaum, which I do not think anybody thought had
a bias in favor of separated training going in, but came away, after
their exhaustive experience in examining all of the training camps for
all of the services, and came away with the inescapable conclusion that
we ought to have gender segregation at the initial entry training
level. That is what the Byrd amendment is about. I urge my colleagues
to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
[[Page S7155]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank you.
I understand the concerns that have been expressed by our colleague
from Indiana and that undoubtedly underlie the concerns expressed by
the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. I, too, had
occasion recently to visit the marines who were training in Parris
Island. And I talked with the women marines who were completing their
training, completing the crucible.
I do not think there was a more inspiring experience that I have had
in recent years than being with them at the first light in the morning
as they marched out with their separate training under those
circumstances. As a former marine, I could not have been prouder. And I
do not want to see us do anything to attempt to change either the
culture or the success of the training program that the Marines engage
in.
But I do not want to see us change the culture or the success of the
Army program or the Navy program or the Air Force program at this point
either. I also had occasion to visit Fort Jackson and talked to the
young women and young men who were undergoing training at both Fort
Jackson and at Parris Island.
I talked to the drill sergeants and the drill instructors. And
neither program is entirely without some challenges, and indeed there
was a significant challenge at Fort Jackson with respect to separation.
That has been addressed by the Secretary of Defense. And many of the
recommendations that were made by the Kassebaum-Baker commission were
good and have already been implemented or are in the process of being
implemented.
But the bottom line is, we established a commission, as mentioned by
Senator Kempthorne, to review those recommendations. I personally
believe at this point, although I was skeptical at the outset, that I
would prefer to see us take a step back and let the services make these
determinations. But at the very least, I do not want to see us
prematurely require the services to make changes that the service
chiefs, the senior enlisted members of those services do not believe
are in their best interests.
And the kind of training and esprit which was clearly evident at
Parris Island, but also evident at Fort Jackson, and in talking to the
young women in training, as well as the drill sergeants--they liked the
kind of training that they were engaged in. They thought it was
successful.
I hope that this Senate will consider the amendment that we dealt
with last night by Senator Snowe from Maine. I think we made the right
decision on that occasion. I hope this evening it will be the pleasure
of the Senate not to pass this particular amendment, and allow our
commission to make their report. Then we can take the actions that are
appropriate under the circumstances.
With that, Mr. President, I thank the chairman and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I respect the viewpoints of all of those who
have spoken, those who are opposed to my amendment as well as those who
have spoken in support of it.
When I read and heard about the problems that were existing in the
military, I stated publicly that I was going to seek, in the Armed
Services Committee, to establish a commission to look into the matter.
Whereupon, I am not implying that Mr. Cohen appointed his commission
because I said that, but he did appoint the commission on his own, or
indicated he was going to appoint a commission.
I looked with some askance at a commission that would be appointed by
the Secretary of Defense to look into this matter. So he proceeded to
appoint that commission. I was surprised that he appointed Nancy
Kassebaum-Baker as chairman of that commission. He appointed a good
commissioner.
So I had approached the matter by pushing for an amendment that would
create a commission. Mr. Kempthorne and I joined in that. But I was
suspicious of any commission that would be appointed within the
administration by the Secretary of Defense--not that it was the
particular Secretary of Defense, but I wanted to establish a fox to
watch the chickens.
As it turned out, the commission that the Secretary appointed was a
good one. It made some excellent recommendations, but by then we had
already decided to appoint our commission.
Now, there are those who say we should wait on the commission that we
appointed. The Kassebaum commission is a commission of high integrity.
We know the former Senator who served from Kansas, Nancy Kassebaum. We
know that she was a great Senator of integrity and one who worked with
high purposes. We all believed in her, and I believed in her
commission.
So I think that we ought not wait on the commission now that I helped
to establish to keep an eye on the commission, that the Defense
Secretary had indicated he was going to appoint. The Kassebaum
commission has rendered its recommendations, and my amendment would put
into effect the recommendations of the Kassebaum commission. My
amendment would conform to the language of the House, the House
language, so when the conferees go to conference, if my amendment is
adopted, this will not be a question in conference because the Senate
language will conform to the House language.
So there are those who have urged that our colleagues vote against my
amendment in order to preserve the integrity of the Senate commission
on gender-integrated training, which will not issue its report until
next year. Mr. President, I suggest to my colleagues that it is better
to preserve the integrity of our Armed Forces and to preserve the
integrity and safety of our young recruits.
Let us not delay the process of implementing changes recommended by
former Senator Kassebaum-Baker and the commission that she headed, a
commission established by the Secretary of Defense. Let us not delay
making changes that will improve the discipline, the teamwork, the
cohesion of our military forces. Put these young recruits in separate
barracks, train them separately until they have been instilled in the
military discipline that will allow them to work together as strong,
confident, and effective teams, and keep them focused on the job at
hand. Let us not put this off for another year, waiting for the Senate
commission to report. The Senate commission's purpose is not undermined
by this action. It may make further recommendations regarding the
problems faced today with mixed-gender training that the Secretary may
want to adopt.
It is also tasked with examining other areas, including
fraternization policies in the various services which clearly, clearly,
also merit review and possible change. There is plenty of work for the
Senate commission still to do. The Senators have noted in their remarks
that senior military officials all supported keeping mixed-gender
training just the way it is. But our colleagues have failed to note
that not all of our military services support mixed-gender training
from day 1. The Commandant of the Marine Corps testified before the
Armed Services Committee that the Marine Corps had decided to keep
their basic training segregated.
I think most of my colleagues would agree that the Marine Corps has
arguably the greatest discipline, the greatest order, and the greatest
unity cohesion of any branch of service. I think it is time that the
other services model themselves after this successful example.
I urge the adoption of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The question is on the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Does the distinguished Senator from West Virginia desire
the yeas and nays?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. WARNER. Could the distinguished ranking member--I do have one
small matter.
Amendment No. 3041
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we ask unanimous consent an amendment of
Senator Murkowski be sent to the desk.
[[Page S7156]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] for Mr. Murkowski,
proposes an amendment numbered 3041.
The amendment is as follows:
No later than December 1, 1998, the Secretary shall submit
to the Congress a report recommending alternative means
through which a refiner that qualifies as a small
disadvantaged business and that delivers fuel by barge to
Defense Energy Supply Point-Anchorage under a contract with
the Defense Energy Supply Center can--
(a) fulfill its contractual obligations,
(b) maintain its status as a small disadvantaged business,
and
(c) receive the small disadvantaged business premium for
the total amount of fuel under the contract,
when ice conditions in Cook Inlet threaten physical delivery
of such fuel.
Any inability by such refiner to satisfy its contractual
obligations to the Defense Energy Supply Center for the
delivery of fuel to Defense Energy Supply Point-Anchorage may
not be used as a basis for the denial of such refiner's small
disadvantaged business status or small disadvantaged business
premium for the total amount of fuel under the contract,
where such inability is a result of ice conditions in Cook
Inlet as determined by the U.S. Coast Guard. Through February
1999; and if the Secretary of Defense determines that such
inability will result in an inequity to the refiner.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is agreeable on this side, as I think it
is on the other side.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. My understanding is, it is cleared by both sides.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent when that amendment is sent to the
desk it be considered read, it be considered passed, reconsidered, and
tabled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3041) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I wish to advise the Senate that following the rollcall
vote, 10 minutes on the Byrd amendment, we now turn to the Burns
amendment pursuant to--I am reciting the existing unanimous consent
order relative to MilCon--5 minutes equally divided, a McCain second-
degree amendment to the Burns amendment, with Senator McCain recognized
for 5 minutes and Senator Stevens recognized for 10 minutes.
My understanding is, in all likelihood there will not be a rollcall
vote as a consequence of these statements by our colleagues.
Following the disposition of the Burns amendment, I ask unanimous
consent that the majority leader and the minority leader be recognized
for such period as they desire to address the Senate and then we
proceed to final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I earlier
filed two amendments concerning the authorization of funds for
continuing the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia.
After discussions with the distinguished manager's of the bill, I
will not call up those amendments on this bill.
The President's budget did not present any request for funds for the
Bosnia mission for FY 1999. The Congress received a supplemental budget
amendment requesting $1.858 billion for Bosnia operations.
After four years, there is little merit in treating Bosnia costs as
an ``unforeseen, emergency requirement'' as required by the Budget Act.
I do not oppose the mission in Bosnia. On a visit to Tuzla last
month, the delegation that I and Senator Inouye led were much impressed
by the commitment and morale of the army forces deployed to Bosnia.
Major General Ellis deserves much of the credit for the recent
success of this mission.
Despite these positive indicators, we face dealing with Bosnia costs
again this year without a clear plan for the size of the force, OPTEMPO
levels or future mission objectives.
Further, no decisions have been made about the future funding for
Bosnia in the five year budget plan now under consideration by the
Department of State.
Many of us agree we need more money for defense. The army cannot
continue the Bosnia mission without additional funds.
As the Senate proceeds to the Defense appropriations bill for 1999,
we will have to consider further the approach the Senate will take for
Bosnia.
If our forces are to remain, and potentially face additional
responsibilities for Kosovo, we must decide how much we are prepared to
spend, and whether these amounts will come from within the current
defense caps, or with additional real appropriations.
I appreciate the willingness of the managers to provide me this
opportunity to discuss these amendments, and for their concern about
the impact of Bosnia on the well-being of the men and women of the
Armed Forces.
vote on amendment no. 3011
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the Byrd amendment. The
yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call 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), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Glenn) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is absent
due to family illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Wyden) would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 180 Leg.]
YEAS--39
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Brownback
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Coats
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Enzi
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Inhofe
Inouye
Kyl
Lott
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Torricelli
NAYS--53
Allard
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Gramm
Hagel
Harkin
Hutchison
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mack
McCain
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Sarbanes
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--8
Akaka
Baucus
Glenn
Hutchinson
Rockefeller
Roth
Specter
Wyden
The amendment (No. 3011) was rejected.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was rejected.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3010
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Gramm amendment
numbered 3010 is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3010) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3016
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand now that there is one other
amendment that will be disposed of without a recorded vote, and then we
would be prepared to go to final passage.
But before we do that, I think it is appropriate that we pause just
for a few minutes so that Senator Daschle, and I, on behalf of the
entire Senate, can express our appreciation and our admiration for the
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
All Senators who would like to express their appreciation and their
affection for this distinguished Senator should feel free to do so
after the vote on final passage, and put their remarks in the Record. I
know that every Senator will want to do that.
But I think it is appropriate that we name this bill the ``Strom
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act of 1999.'' Just think for a
minute what
[[Page S7157]]
this man has done. He is truly one of the legends of the last half
century in this country. Certainly he has had a profound impact on the
U.S. Senate, with his perserverance, his unfailing gentlemanliness, his
respect for each one of us, the institution, and his strong feelings
about the importance of national defense for our country.
This is a man who has served in a way that probably would take six
others of us to even come close to. He was a two-star major general. He
was in the Army Reserve after he served in World War II, where he was a
hero, having crashed behind enemy lines. He was a judge. He is an
author, an attorney, a schoolteacher, Governor, Senator, and
Presidential candidate.
In short, in my opinion, he is ``Mr. Defense'' in the Senate. I think
that after all he has done for us as individuals and for this country
that it is appropriate tonight that we express our appreciation to him
for his leadership, for the tremendous job that he does in getting
these important bills through the Senate. They are never easy. The
defense authorization bill always takes time and effort. But he is here
ready to do battle for what he feels so strongly about--and that is the
defense of our country.
So, Senator Thurmond, we thank you for what you have done for this
country. We thank you for what you have done in this Senate, and it is
a great honor for me to join others in supporting the naming of this
legislation in your honor.
Thank you, sir.
I yield the floor.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
Mr. THURMOND. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to join the majority leader in
this tribute this evening and in cosponsoring the amendment to name the
1999 defense authorization bill after the distinguished chairman.
Senator Thurmond joined the Armed Services Committee in January 1959,
during the 86th Congress. He has served continuously for 40 years on
the committee since then, a truly remarkable achievement.
When Senator Thurmond joined the committee, its membership, included
a number of Senators who would go on to greatness, and whose names
would become synonymous with a strong national defense: Richard
Russell, John Stennis, Henry Jackson, to name a few.
Over the past 40 years, Senator Thurmond's name has become synonymous
with a strong national defense.
A lot has certainly changed over the 40 years that our chairman has
been on that committee.
One of the first bills the committee addressed in 1959 was a bill to
extend the draft. Today, of course, we rely on volunteers--both men and
women--to man the force.
When Senator Thurmond joined the committee, the cold war was raging,
and the flash points of the Cuban missile crisis was just a few years
away. Today, of course, with the collapse of the Soviet empire, the
cold war is largely a matter for the history books, and the military is
repositioning itself to meet the challenges of the next century.
During Senator Thurmond's tenure on the Armed Services Committee, our
Nation's military has responded to the challenges of every sort in
every corner of the globe: Western Europe, Vietnam, Middle East, the
Caribbean basin, the Persian Gulf, and today in Central Europe.
His steadfast commitment to national defense, and to the men and
women in uniform, has been instrumental in ensuring that our military
has always been ready to answer the call whenever and wherever needed.
From the day he was first commissioned as a Reserve second lieutenant
in 1924 until today where he serves as the chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services, Strom Thurmond has dedicated his life to national
service and America's military.
I don't know of a more fitting tribute or a more fitting way with
which to say thank you to this leader, to this patriot than to name the
defense authorization bill after him tonight.
On behalf of all of our colleagues, I congratulate our chairman,
Strom Thurmond.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, words cannot express how I feel. I thank
the majority leader and the minority leader for those kind words.
It has been a pleasure to serve in the Senate and serve on the Armed
Services Committee all these years. We have the greatest country in the
world. And what is more important than national defense, preserving
this Nation that serves us all so well, gives us more freedom, more
liberty than any country in the world?
I thank from the bottom of my heart Senator Lott, the distinguished
majority leader, and the distinguished minority leader for what he had
to say. And I thank all of you for your cooperation. We could not have
gotten through this bill or all the other bills in the past without
your cooperation. Every one of you are true patriots. We are proud of
you.
And, again, all I can say is thank you, thank you, thank you.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I urge the adoption of the Warner-Levin-Lott-Daschle
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3016) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, the remaining item prior to final
passage is the Burns amendment, and according to the unanimous consent
request relative to MilCon, 5 minutes equally divided, McCain second-
degree amendment to the Burns amendment, Senator McCain recognized for
5 minutes, and Senator Stevens not to exceed 10 minutes.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Amendment No. 2728
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we offered this amendment earlier in the
evening, and we gave our points as to why this addition of 22 new
projects is being put on the defense authorization.
These are quality-of-life projects. All of them stood the criteria of
being added and requested by the Defense Department, and so we added
them, because if there is one thing that we are noticing as we visit
our bases around this country and around the world, it is a
deteriorating quality of life and also the retention--keeping some of
our most skilled military people in place.
So in this bill, all these projects have passed the criteria. They
are for child care centers and health care centers, living quarters,
and dining facilities and recreation facilities that have been
requested by our military.
I thank the managers for accepting this, and I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be brief; the hour is late.
We have presently, Mr. President, 11,800 families who are eligible
for food stamps. We have a hemorrhaging of qualified men and women out
of the military. We are now dropping down, as far as our standards for
recruiting, to a lower level than any time since the Vietnam war.
All objective observers recognize that we are not modernizing our
force, nor are we maintaining a level of readiness that is necessary
obviously to carry out our responsibilities. And what we are finding
more and more is an increasingly dangerous world. So when, as happens
around here from time to time, $200 million was found and appeared, of
course one might suppose that those pressing issues might be addressed.
But, no; they came up with a list of 22, guess what, MilCon projects.
I looked at the MilCon projects and examined them and had some study
done by experts, and I could find only one commonality to these
projects, and that is that 90 percent of them happened to be in the
State or districts of members of the Appropriations Committees.
I also found out that the Army got nine projects, one of which was on
the unfunded priority list of the Chief of Staff of the Army. Two
projects were removed from the original amendment because they could
not be completed in the Future Years Defense Plan. So did the committee
go to the list of priorities to find the next two most deserving
projects? No. They found two other
[[Page S7158]]
low priority projects from the same State.
The Air Force had 40 items of higher priority projects on this list,
only 40, about $2 billion worth of projects which were assessed by the
Air Force to be a higher property. The Army had nearly $2.5 billion
worth of higher priority projects than any of these projects. The
Navy's list of unfunded priorities totaled $2.1 billion. Funding
anything on the unfunded priority list of the Chief of Naval Operations
would have been a higher priority since not one of these projects--not
one--was on the list of the Chief of Naval Operations.
The facts here are very interesting: 67 percent of the 27 projects
were not scheduled to be funded until the last 2 years of the Future
Year's Defense Plan.
As I said before, not a single one was on the priority list of the
Navy. None of the Air Force's top six unfunded quality-of-life projects
made this list. Only 1 of the top 15 did. Ninety percent, as I
mentioned, of the construction projects in the amendment are to be
built in the States or districts of Senate and House Appropriations
Committee members.
Half of the added projects are for the Air Force. The Air Force is a
fine, fine service, my friends, but it is the service that claims it
will be able to meet the new one-plus-one barracks living standard a
full 10 years ahead of any of the other services.
The Marine Corps gets one project--one project--and it was second to
the last on the Commandant's list. This is a service that will take
nearly 40 years to meet the same standard as the Air Force 33 years
after the Air Force. The Navy gets 25 percent of the total number of
projects and 14 percent of the money. What is more egregious is the
fact that the Navy won't get one priority project that the Navy asked
for.
Mr. President, these are quality-of-life projects. The Senator from
Montana is right. But no objective observer can view this list as in
any way addressing first the requirements of the military and much
needed improvements in the military, much less the military
construction projects that are needed.
Mr. President, as I have said at the beginning of my comments, we
live in a very dangerous world. We will have some serious foreign
policy crises. I am not sure we have the military that is capable of
meeting some of these foreseeable threats, but I know that what we are
doing with this $200 million will not do a single thing to improve our
ability to meet that threat.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, does the Senator from Virginia seek time?
There is only 10 minutes remaining. Does he seek time?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his time.
Mr. STEVENS. I do seek to understand if the Senator from Virginia
wishes to have some of the 10 minutes. I would be happy to yield some
time.
Mr. ROBB. If the Senator from Alaska would be kind enough to yield me
30 seconds.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend, the Senator from
Alaska.
I simply remind our fellow Senators that the force structure and end
strength of our armed services have been cut 30 percent in recent
years. Our overseas commitments have increased significantly. Our
funding for procurement is down 70 percent. If we are going to support
the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who protect this country, we
need to make certain that we provide for the kinds of priorities that
will support them. And I join my friend from Arizona in being a scold
on this particular issue. I know it is popular, but we are not doing
enough to provide the kind of support that we need for our services
today. This is popular, but it is not the right kind of priority.
I thank the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, military construction is down $2 billion
from 2 years ago. It is down $700 million from last year. This is not
an increase. To the contrary.
I do want to assure my friend from Arizona, if there was some test
that these projects had to be for members of the Appropriations
Committee, I can assure him there would be one for Alaska. There are
none for Alaska on this list. This is not a pork list. This is a list
that was prepared by our staff, the staff of the subcommittee headed by
Senator Burns and part of the full committee staff working with the
staff from the Pentagon to find quality projects that could be
commenced in this next year that are ready to go.
We have, I think, a very good list. In times gone by, people have
said we should not proceed with these projects unless they are
authorized, so we brought this amendment to this authorization bill to
be sure they would be authorized.
This is not an increase. We still will be $700 million below 1998 and
$2 billion lower than 1997. I urge that Senator Burns' amendment be
adopted.
I yield back the remainder of our time.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts 1 minute, if
he wishes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to share with colleagues the
feelings expressed both by the Senator from Arizona and the Senator
from Virginia. In the course of the last months, I heard from an
extraordinary number of our people in uniform who are increasingly
pressured in ways that I think a lot of us have not necessarily been
particularly sensitive to or yet taken into account.
The operations pace, the pace of employment is such that even those
Reserve units that get called up and taken over to whether it is Bosnia
or elsewhere, find themselves reassigned in certain ways that suddenly
put them out on unemployment again.
The tension on families is having a profound impact on morale through
all the services. But in addition to that, the retention rate for some
of our most highly trained, highly skilled personnel is on a rapid
declining trend.
I think we have an enormous amount of bipartisan thinking to do about
how we are going to address this new structure and these new demands.
It is service by service. The Coast Guard--Admiral Kramek, who retired
a few weeks ago, made very profound comments about the tensions in the
Coast Guard with the increased duties they have. I think that is
service to service.
I simply say this is something we need to consider. It has a profound
impact on all of us, and I suppose we will.
I guess the other question I have is how the other 10 percent got in
there.
Mr. STEVENS. I only yielded 1 minute. I am sorry. I will only say
this: The most important thing in retention is quality of life and
treating military families properly. These are projects that are all
quality-of-life projects. We do not have any pork in this amendment.
The Senator from Washington wishes to have time. Let me yield to the
Senator----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 32 seconds left.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for 1 minute.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator 1 minute.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. As the ranking member on
military construction, I assure my colleagues that we have worked very,
very carefully this year to go through the numerous requests and the
needs of the military. We are extremely aware of the quality-of-life
needs of our military, and they are reflected in this amendment that is
before us.
This amendment adds child-care centers, inadequate housing
conditions, old dining facilities and lack of physical fitness centers.
These are quality-of-life issues.
I have traveled out and talked to men and women on the military
bases. These are the issues they are asking us to address, and these
are the ones that are addressed in this amendment. We worked very
carefully in a bipartisan way to put these forward. I assure my
colleagues we have done it in a fair
[[Page S7159]]
manner with the needs of the quality of life of our men and women in
the military in mind.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, during the last recess, I took a group of
our people to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia and Belgium. We talked
personally with members of the armed services and questioned them about
their decisions, some of them, not to re-enlist.
When we come back from the recess, we will have the defense
appropriations bill before us. There are initiatives in there to deal
with retention, to deal with additional quality-of-life issues, and to
deal with some of the basic problems with which the young people in our
military service are really trying to cope.
Mr. President, I had breakfast this morning with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs. One of the great problems we have in deploying people now
is very often husband and wife are in the same unit, and they are
subject to being deployed. We have to have, literally, foster parents
to assure that these families are treated right while husband and wife
are deployed abroad.
This is not a simple matter to deal with, and it does take money for
military construction to meet these needs. I hope that the Senate will
be ready for a debate when we get to the appropriations bill, because
there are some very controversial issues in there that we seek to
initiate to try to deal with the problems of families in the armed
services today.
I urge you to approve this as a quality-of-life amendment. I yield
back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. WARNER. I urge adoption of the amendment by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2728) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final
passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass? The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is
absent due to a death in family.
I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is
absent because of illness.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn),
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), are necessarily
absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is absent
because of family illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Wyden) would vote ``aye.''
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 4, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]
YEAS--88
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
NAYS--4
Bumpers
Feingold
Harkin
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--8
Akaka
Baucus
Glenn
Hutchinson
Rockefeller
Roth
Specter
Wyden
The bill (S. 2057), as amended, was passed.
(The text of the bill will be printed in a future edition of the
Record.)
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as a wind-up, I would like to speak for
about 3 minutes.
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for their support of
this bill. It was their suggestions and comments that make this a
strong bill--a bill that I am extremely proud will bear my name. I
appreciate the support of the able majority leader, Senator Lott. As a
former member of the Armed Services Committee, I know he recognizes the
importance of this bill to the Nation and our military. I thank the
able minority leader for his fine cooperation and leadership.
Mr. President, I want to thank the members of the Armed Services
Committee for their loyalty and support over the past years. I want to
especially recognize Senator Warner for his leadership during the past
hours. It will serve him well in the future.
Finally, I want to recognize Senator Carl Levin, the ranking member
of the Armed Services Committee. During the past 2 years, he has been
my friend and counsel. I have the highest respect for his abilities and
concern for the security of our Nation, I shall always call him my
friend.
In closing, I want to recognize the hard work of the staff--both on
the committee and in the personal offices. Under the leadership of the
staff directors Les Brownlee and David Lyles; they have accomplished
wonders.
I would be remiss if I did not recognize the work of the floor staff.
They have spent countless and dedicated hours supporting the Senators
and our staffs. Without their efforts, it would have been impossible to
pass this bill.
Mr. President, this is a good bill for our Nation and most important
to the men and women who wear the uniforms of our military services. It
is and always will be my greatest honor to be associated with these
patriots.
I thank the President and yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me join Senator Thurmond, our chairman,
in thanking a number of people, the members of our committee. Let me
not single out anybody, but I do want to pay a special tribute to
Senator Warner, Senator Thurmond's loyal lieutenant, who really worked
along with Senator Thurmond and made it possible.
We have great members of this Armed Services Committee who worked
with us on a bipartisan basis--David Lyles on our side and staff on our
side, Les Brownlee and staff on the Republican side, working together,
all the time, to try to fashion a bill on which all of us at the end
can come together.
We want to thank our leaders, Senator Lott, Senator Daschle who
worked so hard to make this kind of effort happen in just a few days.
It seemed like a long period of time this was on the floor, but as
complicated a bill as this is, and involving as many issues and as much
money as this bill does, we really, I think, disposed of this bill with
great dispatch as well as bipartisanship.
This bill is a tribute to Senator Thurmond. Many have paid tribute to
him tonight, and I won't repeat that except to say I will always
remember this evening, naming a bill that strengthens our national
security after Senator Strom Thurmond, who has meant so much to the
national security of this country.
It has been a real pleasure and an honor to work with Senator
Thurmond. I know that my staff, our staff here, as well as all the
members of the committee on both sides of the aisle felt very, very
good that this bill was named after Senator Strom Thurmond.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I first want to thank my distinguished
chairman who has been like a big brother to
[[Page S7160]]
me during my 19 years on the Senate and whose steady hand has remained
on the helm of this committee for years, to give us the guidance and
counsel that is so valued by all of us. All members of the Armed
Services Committee have joined in the tribute.
I ask unanimous consent all members of the Armed Services Committee
be made cosponsors of the amendment that the distinguished Senator from
Michigan and I, together with our respective leaders, put forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, I join Senator Thurmond and Senator
Levin in extending our great appreciation to Colonel Brownlee, George,
David Lyles, and all others, and those who represent the Senators who
have worked so hard on this bill and could not. We could not have a
bill of this magnitude without their help. That is night and day and
weekends. Colonel Browning said there would be no weekend off this
weekend. I hate to pass that on.
Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Michigan. We
came to the Senate together, and God willing, we will work together in
future years. We so rarely have a cross word between us. I thank him
for his kind remarks.
Mr. President, now on behalf of the distinguished chairman, Mr.
Thurmond, I ask unanimous consent that S. 2057, as amended, be printed
as passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. On behalf of the distinguished chairman, I ask further
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed immediately to the
consideration en bloc of S. 2058 through S. 2060, Calendar Order
Numbers 365, 366, and 367; that all after the enacting clause of those
bills be stricken and that the appropriate portion of S. 2057, as
amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, as follows:
In lieu of S. 2058, Insert Division C of S. 2057, as Passed;
In lieu of S. 2059, Insert Division B of S. 2057, as Passed;
In lieu of S. 2060, Insert Division A of S. 2057, as Passed; and that
these bills be advanced to third reading and passed; that the motion to
reconsider en bloc be laid upon the table; and that the above actions
occur without intervening action or debate.
I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate Report No. 105-189,
the report to the Committee on Armed Services on S. 2060, be deemed to
be the report of the committee accompanying S. 2057.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 2058) was deemed read the third time and passed.
(The text of S. 2058 will appear in a future edition of the Record.)
The bill (S. 2059) was deemed read the third time and passed.
(The text of S. 2059 will appear in a future edition of the Record.)
The bill (S. 2060) was deemed read the third time and passed.
(The text of S. 2060 will appear in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. WARNER. On behalf of our distinguished chairman, Mr. President,
with respect to H.R. 3616, the House-passed version of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, is named in honor of
our distinguished chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
turn to its immediate consideration; that all after the enacting clause
be stricken and the text of S. 2057, as passed, be submitted in lieu
thereof; that the bill be advanced to third reading and passed; that
the title of S. 2057 be substituted for the title of H.R. 3616; that
the Senate insist on its amendments to the bill and the title and agree
to or request a conference, as appropriate, with the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses and the Chair be recognized to
appoint conferees; that the motion to reconsider the above-mentioned
vote be laid upon the table; and that the foregoing occur without
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 3616), as amended, was considered, read the third
time, and passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER appointed Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Warner, Mr. McCain,
Mr. Coats, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Santorum, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Glenn, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Robb, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Cleland,
conferees on the part of the Senate.
____________________