[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.

                          ____________________