[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9375-S9389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendments Nos. 3420 through 3464, En Bloc
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have sent to the desk the first
managers' package. And I believe that it has been cleared on both
sides. So there is no misunderstanding about it, because Senators may
wonder whether the amendments are in this or not, I want to read this
package and then ask for its immediate consideration. Senator Akaka's
amendment on electric vehicles R&D funds; Bingaman-Domenici on the Air
National Guard Program at White Sands; an amendment that I have offered
for Senator Cochran on acoustic sensor technology; the Domenici-Harkin
amendment on food stamp report; the Durbin amendment on land conveyance
at Fort Sheridan; the Gregg amendment on conveyance of former Pease Air
Force Base; the Hollings amendment on environmental restoration; my
amendment for strategic materials manufacturing; the Inouye amendment
on American Samoa vets; the Inouye amendment on Ford Island; the
Kennedy amendment on cybersecurity; the Sarbanes amendment on the
Korean war vets memorial repairs; the McConnell amendment on chemical
demilitarization; the Mack amendment on NAWC transfer of property; the
Mikulski amendment on ship-breaking; the Lott amendment on the next-
generation Internet; the Murkowski amendment on FERTEC; my amendment
for Senator Shelby on the electronic circuit board manufacturing; the
Specter amendment on proliferation of the Weapons of Mass Destruction
Commission; my amendment on the MILES training and equipment issue; my
amendment on rescission as of the date of enactment; my amendment for
Senator Coats on the near-term digital radio issue; my amendment for
Senator Warner on Palmtop computers for soldiers; the Boxer amendment
on what we call Shop Stop; the Ford amendment on counterdrug
interdiction; the Dodd amendment on Lyme Disease; the Kerry amendment
on solid-state dye lasers; the McCain-Kyl amendment on land transfer;
my amendment for Senator Kyl on passenger safety system for tactical
trucks; the Grassley amendment on problem disbursements threshold; the
Harkin amendment on the gulf war illness; my amendment on the air
combat training instrumentation issue; Faircloth amendment on TRICARE;
my amendment on firefighting equipment leasing; the Bumpers amendment
on the DTRTCA, Domestic Preparedness Training Center; the Faircloth
amendment on the Aerostat Development Program; Burns-Baucus for
redevelopment of the Havre Air Force Base; the McCain amendment on
foreign students' reimbursements; Dorgan on Indian incentive payments;
the McConnell-Ford amendment on chemical demilitarization; the
Wellstone SOS, child soldiers, global use amendment; my amendment for
Senator Faircloth on spending 1998 funds, so-called PFNA issue; the
Bennett amendment on alternate turbine engines; and the Gramm amendment
on military voting rights.
There should be 44 separate amendments in that package. They have
been cleared on both sides, and unless there is some discussion, I ask
unanimous consent the first managers' package be adopted and any
statements offered by any Senator appear in the Record prior to
adoption of that Senator's amendment that is in the package.
I add to it, Senator Inouye has a managers' amendment--this would be
the first amendment of Senator Inouye--for Ms. Moseley-Braun that
pertains to the National Guard Armory in Chicago.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The managers' amendment is adopted.
Mr. STEVENS. I send the last amendment to the desk to be included,
and it makes 45 amendments in the package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the en bloc amendments.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments
No. 3420 through and including 3463 en bloc, and the Senator
from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes
amendment numbered 3464.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3420
(Purpose: To set aside $12,000,000 for continuation of electric and
hybrid-electric vehicle development)
On page 33, line 25, insert before the period at the end
the following: ``: Provided, That of the funds appropriated
under this heading, $12,000,000 shall be available only to
continue development of electric and hybrid-electric
vehicles''.
Mr. AKAKA. I have offered an amendment to the Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill to provide $12 million for electric and hybrid-
electric vehicle development. The funds will be administered by the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as DARPA. Senators
Inouye, Jeffords, Leahy, Coats, and Boxer have joined me as cosponsors
of the amendment.
This is not a new program. Congress provided $115 million to the
Department of Defense for the electric vehicle program over the past
five fiscal years. Industry has contributed more than $115 million in
matching funds. In fiscal year 1998, the appropriation was $15 million,
so my amendment represents a budget reduction of 20 percent compared to
the current fiscal year.
Seven regional consortia, comprised of more than 200 member
companies, participate in the program. Individual consortia, which were
selected competitively, include Hawaii, Sacramento, the Mid Atlantic
Consortium in Johnstown, PA, the Northeast Consortium in Boston, the
Southern Consortium in Atlanta, the Mid America Consortium in
Indianapolis, and CALSTART in Burbank, CA.
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposed that the DARPA
program be transferred to the Department of Energy and the Department
of Transportation. The object of the fiscal year 1999 change was to
transfer DoD-developed technology to commercial service vehicles such
as buses, delivery vans, and service trucks. I support this transfer.
Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of all three federal agencies
and the consortia that participate in the electric vehicle program,
another year of funding through the Department of Defense is needed
before the transition can proceed.
The Department of Defense has long been interested in hybrid electric
combat vehicles because they can reduce fuel consumption by 50 percent,
leading to a reduced fuel logistics burden, increased endurance, and
reduced emissions. In addition, hybrid electric combat vehicles use
electric power for mobility, weapons, countermeasures and sensors, and
have reduced thermal and acoustic signatures.
The five-year DARPA program has resulted in the development of a
number of combat vehicles with hybrid electric propulsion. These
include an Army M-113 Armored Personnel Carrier, a Bradley Fighting
Vehicle, two High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, commonly
known as Humvees, and a prototype composite armored vehicle.
Other DoD projects are in the planning stages. DARPA and the Marine
Corps are jointly developing a hybrid-electric reconnaissance,
surveillance and targeting vehicle, designed as a stealthy, fuel
efficient vehicle that can be transported by the V-22 Osprey in support
of the Marine Corps Sea Dragon operation. DARPA and the Army are
jointly developing a combat hybrid power system for a 15-ton future
combat vehicle. The system will provide pulse power for electric guns,
directed energy weapons, and electromagnetic armor, as well as other
components and systems.
The funds provided by my amendment should be used in the same manner,
and for the same program objectives, as in fiscal year 1998 funding. As
the author of the amendment, it is my intention that DARPA administer
the program as it did in fiscal year 1998, and that funds can be used
for the development of defense and non-defense electric and hybrid-
electric vehicles.
I thank the Chairman, and my colleague from Hawaii, the ranking
Democrat on the subcommittee for their consideration of my amendment. I
yield the floor.
[[Page S9376]]
AMENDMENT NO. 3421
(Purpose: To set aside $2,250,000 for the Defense Systems Evaluation
program for support of test and training operations at White Sands
Missile Range, New Mexico, and Fort Bliss, Texas)
On page 99 in between lines 17 and 18, insert before the
period at the end the following:
``Sec. 8104. (a) That of the amount available under Air
National Guard, Operations and Maintenance for flying hours
and related personnel support, $2,250,000 shall be available
for the Defense Systems Evaluation program for support of
test and training operations at White Sands Missile Range,
New Mexico, and Fort Bliss, Texas''.
AMENDMENT NO 3422
(Purpose: The purpose is to provide $1,000,000 for Acoustic Sensor
Technology Development Planning for the Department of Defense. The
funds are provided from within the funds appropriated for Defense-wide
RDT&E)
On page 99 insert at the appropriate place the following
new section:
Sec. . That of the funds appropriated for Defense-wise
research, development, test and evaluation, $1,000,000 is
available for Acoustic Sensor Technology Development
Planning.
amendment no. 3423
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to report on food stamp
assistance for Armed Forces families, and to require the Comptroller
General to study and report on issues relating to the family life,
morale, and retention of members of the Armed Forces)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report on food stamp assistance for members
of the Armed Forces. The Secretary shall submit the report at
the same time that the Secretary submits to Congress, in
support of the fiscal year 2000 budget, the materials that
relate to the funding provided in that budget for the
Department of Defense.
(b) The report shall include the following:
(1) The number of members of the Armed Forces and
dependents of members of the Armed Forces who are eligible
for food stamps.
(2) The number of members of the Armed Forces and
dependents of members of the Armed Forces who received food
stamps in fiscal year 1998.
(3) A proposal for using, as a means for eliminating or
reducing significantly the need of such personnel for food
stamps, the authority under section 2828 of title 10, United
States Code, to lease housing facilities for enlisted members
of the Armed Forces and their families when Government
quarters are not available for such personnel.
(4) A proposal for increased locality adjustments through
the basic allowance for housing and other methods as a means
for eliminating or reducing significantly the need of such
personnel for food stamps.
(5) Other potential alternative actions (including any
recommended legislation) for eliminating or reducing
significantly the need of such personnel for food stamps.
(6) A discussion of the potential for each alternative
action referred to in paragraph (3) or (4) to result in the
elimination or a significant reduction in the need of such
personnel for food stamps.
(c) Each potential alternative action included in the
report under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (b) shall
meet the following requirements:
(1) Apply only to persons referred to in paragraph (1) of
such subsection.
(2) Be limited in cost to the lowest amount feasible to
achieve the objectives.
(d) In this section:
(1) The term ``fiscal year 2000 budget'' means the budget
for fiscal year 2000 that the President submits to Congress
under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code.
(2) The term ``food stamps'' means assistance under the
Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
Sec. 8105. (a) The Comptroller General shall carry out a
study of issues relating to family life, morale, and
retention of members of the Armed Forces and, not later than
June 25, 1999, submit the results of the study to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. The Comptroller General may submit to the
committees an interim report on the matters described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (c). Any such interim
report shall be submitted by February 12, 1999.
(b) In carrying out the study, the Comptroller General
shall consult with experts on the subjects of the study who
are independent of the Department of Defense.
(c) The study shall include the following matters:
(1) The conditions of the family lives of members of the
Armed Forces and the members' needs regarding their family
lives, including a discussion of each of the following:
(A) How leaders of the Department of Defense and leaders of
each of the Armed Forces--
(i) collect, organize, validate, and assess information to
determine those conditions and needs;
(ii) determine consistency and variations among the
assessments and assessed information for each of the Armed
Forces; and
(iv) use the information and assessments to address those
conditions and needs.
(B) How the information on those conditions and needs
compares with any corresponding information that is available
on the conditions of the family lives of civilians in the
United States and the needs of such civilians regarding their
family lives.
(C) How the conditions of the family lives of members of
each of the Armed Forces and the members' needs regarding
their family lives compare with those of the members of each
of the other Armed Forces.
(D) How the conditions and needs of the members compare or
vary among members in relation to the pay grades of the
members.
(E) How the conditions and needs of the members compare or
vary among members in relation to the occupational
specialties of the members.
(F) What, if any, effects high operating tempos of the
Armed Forces have had on the family lives of members,
including effects on the incidence of substance abuse,
physical or emotional abuse of family members, and divorce.
(G) The extent to which family lives of members of the
Armed Forces prevent members from being deployed.
(2) The rates of retention of members of the Armed Forces,
including the following:
(A) The rates based on the latest information available
when the report is prepared.
(B) Projected rates for future periods for which reasonably
reliable projections can be made.
(C) An analysis of the rates under subparagraphs (A) and
(B) for each of the Armed Forces, each pay grade, and each
major occupational specialty.
(3) The relationships among the quality of the family lives
of members of the Armed Forces, high operating tempos of the
Armed Forces, and retention of the members in the Armed
Forces, analyzed for each of the Armed Forces, each pay
grade, and each occupational specialty, including, to the
extent ascertainable and relevant to the analysis of the
relationships, the reasons expressed by members of the Armed
Forces for separating from the Armed Forces and the reasons
expressed by the members of the Armed Forces for remaining in
the Armed Forces.
(4) The programs and policies of the Department of Defense
(including programs and policies specifically directed at
quality of life) that have tended to improve, and those that
have tended to degrade, the morale of members of the Armed
Forces and members of their families, the retention of
members of the Armed Forces, and the perceptions of members
of the Armed Forces and members of their families regarding
the quality of their lives.
(d) In this section, the term ``major occupational
specialty'' means the aircraft pilot specialty and each other
occupational specialty that the Comptroller General considers
a major occupational specialty of the Armed Forces.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to have Senator Harkin as a cosponsor of
this amendment.
There are two parts to my amendment; both parts have no cost.
The first part addresses the 12,000 military families on Food Stamps.
For 3 years the Defense Department has refused to take this problem
seriously.
I first wrote to DoD in 1996; then I was told that this was a problem
only because military personnel have decided, and I quote, ``to have a
larger family than he/she can afford.'' In other words, it is Defense
Department policy to discourage military families and to engineer the
size of those families.
In 1997, I wrote again to Secretary Cohen because he publicly stated
that it was ``not acceptable'' for military personnel to be on Food
Stamps. I regret to say that he wrote back saying only that he would
``monitor'' the issue.
Last year in the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill,
Congress mandated a DoD report on potential solutions. The report is
now several months late and will not be submitted in the foreseeable
future.
Congress is getting the bureaucratic stiff-arm from DoD on this
issue. It's time to bring that to an end.
My amendment will require DoD to propose low cost solutions to this
problem, and it requires these proposals as a part of DoD's FY 2000
budget request.
Next year. If DoD still refuses to take this problem seriously, I
will propose my own solution. If the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Defense Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee see fit to support
me, I'm sure we can be successful.
The second part of the amendment will permit us to better understand
our growing problems in military family life, morale, and retention.
This year, I collected information from each of the services on these
issues. Unfortunately, the information I collected confirms my
suspicions that
[[Page S9377]]
the Defense Department has failed to collect data properly. For
example:
Each service collects data on these issues differently--or not at
all--which prevents comparing among the services. This also means that
successes and failures to address these problems cannot be identified.
Now that everyone agrees that readiness is a serious problem,
everyone wants to do something about it. But, because the issues are
not fully understood, some of the proposed `'solutions'' may be off the
mark. For example, Congress is increasing re-enlistment bonuses for
pilots to compete with airline salaries, but there are indications that
high airline salaries are not the real problem. We won't really
understand the problem until we have better data; only then can we
apply effective solutions.
The nature of military life has gone through profound change in the
last 20 years, but those changes are not fully understood or taken into
account in DoD national security decision making. It is not clear how
the new prominence of families in military life should--or should not--
be taken into account in making national security decisions.
Because of these problems, my amendment requires a special unit in
the General Accounting Office to collect and study the data. They will
use an Advisory Panel of experts to assist the study and will report
back to the Appropriations Committees next year. With these issues
better understood, we will be able to apply more effective solutions,
and we should be able to make some real improvements in how Congress
and DoD address quality of life and family issues.
amendment no. 3424
(Purpose: Relating to the conveyance of the remaining Army Reserve
property at former Fort Sheridan, Illinois)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act
may be used to carry out any conveyance of land at the former
Fort Sheridan, Illinois, unless such conveyance is consistent
with a regional agreement among the communities and
jurisdictions in the vicinity of Fort Sheridan and in
accordance with section 2862 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (division B of Public
Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 573).
(2) The land referred to in paragraph (1) is a parcel of
real property, including any improvements thereon, located at
the former Fort Sheridan, Illinois, consisting of
approximately 14 acres, and known as the northern Army
Reserve enclave area, that is covered by the authority in
section 2862 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 and has not been conveyed pursuant to
that authority as of the date of enactment of this Act.
amendment no. 3425
(Purpose: To require a conveyance of certain property at former Pease
Air Force Base, New Hampshire)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. (a) Conveyance Required.--The Secretary of the
Air Force shall convey, without consideration, to the Town of
Newington, New Hampshire, all right, title, and interest of
the United States in and to a parcel of real property,
together with improvements thereon, consisting of
approximately 1.3 acres located at former Pease Air Force
Base, New Hampshire, and known as the site of the old Stone
School.
(b) Exception from Screening Requirement.--The Secretary
shall make the conveyance under subsection (a) without regard
to the requirement under section 2696 of title 10, United
States Code, that the property be screened for further
Federal use in accordance with the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.).
(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 Secretary.
(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 interest of the United
States.
amendment no. 3426
(Purpose: To make available up to $10,000,000 for the Department of
Defense share of environmental restoration at Defense Logistics Agency
inventory location 429 (Macalloy site) in Charleston, South Carolina
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. Of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available for the Department of Defense by this Act, up to
$10,000,000 may be available for the Department of Defense
share of environmental remediation and restoration activities
at Defense Logistics Agency inventory location 429 (Macalloy
site) in Charleston, South Carolina.
amendment No. 3427
(Purpose: To designate funds for a strategic materials manufacturing
project)
On page 99, insert in the appropriate place the following
new general provision:
Sec. 8104. Of the funds provided under Title IV of this Act
under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', for Materials and Electronics
Technology, $2,000,000 shall be made available only for the
Strategic Materials Manufacturing Facility project.
amendment no. 3428
(Purpose: To authorize the transportation of American Samoa veterans to
Hawaii on Department of Defense aircraft for receipt of veterans
medical care in Hawaii.)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. (a) Chapter 157 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 2641 the following:
``Sec. 2641a. Transportation of American Samoa veterans on
Department of Defense aircraft for certain medical care in
Hawaii
``(a) Transportation Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense
may provide transportation on Department of Defense aircraft
for the purpose of transporting any veteran specified in
subsection (b) between American Samoa and the State of Hawaii
if such transportation is required in order to provide
hospital care to such veteran as described in that
subsection.
``(b) Veterans Eligible for Transport.--A veteran eligible
for transport under subsection (a) is any veteran who--
``(1) resides in and is located in American Samoa; and
``(2) as determined by an official of the Department of
Veterans Affairs designated for that purpose by the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs, must be transported to the State of
Hawaii in order to receive hospital care to which such
veteran is entitled under chapter 17 of title 38 in
facilities of such Department in the State of Hawaii.
``(c) Administration.--(1) Transportation may be provided
to veterans under this section only on a space-available
basis.
``(2) A charge may not be imposed on a veteran for
transportation provided to the veteran under this section.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `veteran' has the meaning given that term in
section 101(2) of title 38.
``(2) The term `hospital care' has the meaning given that
term in section 1701(5) of title 38.''.
(b) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 157
of such title is amended by inserting after the item relating
to section 2641 the following new item:
``2641a. Transportation of American Samoa veterans on Department of
Defense aircraft for certain medical care in Hawaii.''.
amendment no. 3429
At the appropriate place, insert:
Sec. . Not later than December 1, 1998, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the President and the Congressional
Defense Committees a report regarding the potential for
development of Ford Island within the Pearl Harbor Naval
Complex, Oahu, Hawaii through an integrated resourcing plan
incorporating both appropriated funds and one or more public-
private ventures. This report shall consider innovative
resource development measures, including but not limited to,
an enhanced-use leasing program similar to that of the
Department of Veterans Affairs as well as the sale or other
disposal of land in Hawaii under the control of the Navy as
part of an overall program for Ford Island development. The
report shall include proposed legislation for carrying out
the measures recommended therein.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to raise a matter which I
believe could revolutionize the way we finance our defense
infrastructure, our family housing, barracks and other base facilities.
If successful, it would allow us to recapitalize our bases with a much
smaller investment than is currently required. In so doing, it could
dramatically improve the quality of life of the men and women in
uniform.
Mr. President often Members rise and offer that theirs is a simple
amendment. This is not a simple matter, and it will take some time to
describe it, but I want all of my colleagues to understand what it
would do for national defense.
Several years ago, I sponsored legislation to sell defense property
in Hawaii to the State.
In return the proceeds were used to build a new bridge to connect the
Pearl Harbor Naval Base to Ford Island, a piece of Navy property
located in Pearl Harbor.
Over the years Ford Island has been the home of Battleship Row, the
site of the Arizona Memorial, and just last month it became the final
home for the U.S.S. Missouri. It has had a small airstrip on which some
of the Navy's earliest aviators trained.
[[Page S9378]]
It has housed a few sailors and families, and has been the workplace
for selected other military activities.
But because there was no bridge connecting the island, it could never
be fully utilized. The Island comprises 450 acres, about half the size
of Pearl Harbor Navy Base, yet it contains less than one tenth of the
working and residential population of Pearl Harbor.
The only access to the island has been by ferry. For years, boats
have shuttled passengers and cargo from the rest of base about once per
hour. In short it has been a very inefficient use of space. And for a
small State like mine, especially in and around Honolulu, space is a
premium.
In April of this year, this situation was changed forever. Ford
Island was opened to the rest of Oahu by the new Chick Clarey Bridge.
Ford Island is now poised to be a more useful part of the Pearl
Harbor naval facility. However, as is unfortunately so often the case
in these matters, there simply is not enough money in the Navy budget
to build the facilities that could make this base more useful. And so,
without action, Ford Island will remain underutilized.
About two years ago, when he took over as the Commander in Chief of
the Pacific Fleet, Admiral Clemins saw the bridge being constructed and
recognized the prospect of developing Ford Island. He began to
investigate how he could maximize its vast potential to improve the
Navy in Hawaii. He quickly came to the conclusion that there simply was
not enough money to build the new facilities the Navy needs.
While some might have given up when faced with this obstacle, that is
not the Admiral's way. Instead he directed his staff to keep studying
this and identify other ways to achieve his objective.
The Admiral took to heart what we have often heard coming from the
Congress, that we need to revolutionize the way the Pentagon does
business.
He agreed that we have to become more efficient, more like the
private sector. He noted that public/private venture legislation had
been approved by the Congress at the request of former Secretary of
Defense William Perry for a few family housing projects and he
suggested that a similar but expanded approach was needed for Ford
Island.
At every step there were those that told him why he couldn't do this.
Some said it would cost billions, others that the State would not
support developing Ford Island, still others raised technical arguments
on our arcane accounting practices in the Government. But, the Admiral
kept after it.
While the lawyers raised legal concerns, and the Navy staff and
others raised objections, every decision maker, the leaders of the
Navy, State, and local governments, and business leaders always had the
same response. This is a good idea, we must figure out how we can do
it.
That was the reaction of the Commander in Chief of The Pacific
Command, Admiral Prueher. Recently he testified to the Appropriations
Committee that he has reviewed the legislation and believes it is the
right approach to solving some of the critical housing and facility
shortfalls for the Navy.
But, because of the difficulty of moving the legislative proposal
within the bureaucracy, the measure was not included in the President's
formal budget request. Still the Fleet Commander and CINCPAC were
undeterred.
Admiral Clemins brought the idea to Washington directly, where he
quickly won support from the uniformed Navy.
The Chief of Naval Operations gave the proposal his approval. He then
received personal support from the Secretary of the Navy. His arguments
even won the informal support from the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Finally, the Navy gave the proposal its official blessing. And after
many, many months, the legislation was finally forwarded unofficially
to the Congress.
Unfortunately, all of this took time and the delays in winding
through the internal chain of command did not allow the Senate's Armed
Services Committee time to review this matter prior to its mark up.
I offered this same amendment to that bill and it was adopted.
However, there are some in the House that do not agree with the Navy,
DOD and the Senate Armed Services Committee and they hope to gut the
proposal.
This amendment requires DOD to report on the current legislative
proposal and to submit legislation to carry out the proposal by
December 1, 1998. That will provide sufficient time for the
authorization committee to pass judgement on the matter next year.
The amendment does not mandate any specific terms for the Defense
Department to follow, but offers several Navy ideas to be considered.
What the Navy seeks to do, as a pilot project only for this one base,
is to provide authority to the Secretary of the Navy to use his
resources in conjunction with the private sector to develop Ford
Island. The plan would examine whether it is feasible to provide
incentives and other guarantees to businesses to carry out this idea,
and establish a framework to carry it out.
It is important that we understand how this differs from our current
system and how it might work. Under our normal course of operations,
the Navy would identify how much the development of Ford Island would
cost, and it would develop a spending plan. It is estimated that the
costs of developing the island under normal procedures could be as much
as $600 million.
Judging from the military construction budget it would probably
require 15 to 20 years to identify sufficient funds to pay for this.
That means a whole generation of Navy sailors would enlist, serve and
retire, before the base could be completed. This is simply unacceptable
to Admiral Clemins as it should be to all of my colleagues.
By relying on a joint venture, the Navy can use resources gained by
leasing, exchanging, or selling property that it currently holds in
Hawaii and use those assets and revenues to leverage development of the
island. It is like taking out a long term loan. The Navy can put down
the down payment using its property or newly generated cash resources,
and, as is the case under the family housing pilot program, the sailors
housing allowances can be used to make the mortgage payments.
In theory, the Navy might offer a commercial developer the
opportunity to establish a few small commercial facilities--like
parking garages, child care facilities, shops and restaurants--on the
base to support the families, and in return the private concern would
be responsible for developing additional Navy facilities.
In each case, the Secretary of the Navy would have to approve the
specific uses and the Congress would have to allow the funding to be
used for the proposed purpose. This means that sufficient oversight
would exist at all levels to ensure that the project stayed on course.
Let me tell my colleagues that the business community in my State is
very excited about this proposal.
They are positive that the legislation will provide a mechanism for
creating a public-private partnership to develop the island.
From Congress' viewpoint, the development will involve very few
taxpayer dollars which is exactly what is needed in today's tight
budget environment.
Most important is what this will do for the men and women in the
Navy. Today in Hawaii, the Navy is spread out throughout the island of
Oahu at a number of small posts and with large numbers of military
families living in poor conditions a long way away from their jobs at
Pearl Harbor.
The development of Ford Island will allow the Navy to move many of
its sailors right to the base to live and work. This will cut down on
their commutes, and it will keep them on base.
It will also help ease what has become a very congested rush hour on
the highways in the area. For many what was an hour commute will now
become minutes. For families disconnected from the Navy community, they
will now be living and working in a quality family environment--a nice
home in a beautiful location, with the working spouse only minutes
away.
For our commanders this means many more sailors housed right on base
and readily available if needed.
It will probably come as a surprise to my colleagues to learn that my
State has some of the worst housing in all the Defense Department. The
Army says its worst barracks anywhere in the world are in Hawaii. Some
of the Navy's housing is so bad that it is an embarrassment to the
service.
[[Page S9379]]
Several years ago, Mrs. Margaret Dalton, the wife of Navy Secretary
John Dalton visited Hawaii and was taken on a tour of some family
housing units. The conditions were so deplorable that she was very
troubled. When she returned to Washington she insisted that the Navy
provide her with a full briefing on its housing rehabilitation plans
for the State. Single handedly she moved the Navy forward.
Since then, the Navy has made great strides toward improving living
conditions. But it has become painfully clear, that there simply isn't
enough money to do what is required. There are many areas that still
need to be torn down and rebuilt. Or, that property could be turned
over for a new use by the private sector. Mrs. Dalton will long be
remembered by the sailors who serve in Hawaii as the person who started
to turn around the Navy's living conditions in my State. This proposal
will provide us a means to expand upon her work, but this time without
enormous investment in this constrained budget environment.
The benefits of the proposal to the Navy and my State are enormous.
I am sure many are now thinking this sounds good, but if it is that
simple why hasn't it been done before. To that I would say, it is not
simple.
It will require great leadership and management by the Navy to work
with the local authorities and business community to carry this out.
But, I am confident that we have the right man for the job in Admiral
Clemins. He was demonstrated his skills as both a warrior and as a
manager and he has the skills necessary to accomplish this task.
This approach has not been tried before, because no one put the time
and energy into working through all the details to formulate a
legislative plan to achieve this goal. Furthermore, how many
opportunities arise when a military department, for all practical
purposes, receives what amounts to a land grant adjoining a base? This
is in some ways a unique opportunity because of the location of Ford
Island and the new bridge. That is why a pilot proposal is proper. It
could also serve as a model for other revitalization efforts at other
bases, perhaps not on this grand a scale, but using elements from this
approach.
My colleagues all know that there will come a time when the Defense
Department will want to establish a new base somewhere. This public
private venture could be the method where building new bases could
become affordable.
Mr. President, this is an excellent idea, that has been shepherded
this far by the Navy because they recognized that it is the only way
that we can take Ford Island and develop it in a timely and cost
effective manner.
Ten years from now, we can be discussing how we will get enough money
and authority to proceed to develop Ford Island for the Navy, or we can
be discussing how this model pilot program established a method whereby
we have begun to recapitalize our defense infrastructure affordably.
This is our choice, there is only one answer, we need to approve this
legislation to get the ball rolling.
I think my colleagues for their attention, and I urge all to support
this measure.
Amendment no. 3430
(Purpose: To reduce funds available for Navy S-3 Weapon System
Improvement program and to provide funds for a cyber-security program)
On page 99, insert in the appropriate place the following
new general provisions:
Sec. 8104. Within the amounts appropriated under Title IV
of this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Navy'', the amount available for S-3 Weapon
System Improvement is hereby reduced by $8,000,000: Provided,
Within the amounts appropriated under Title IV of this Act
under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Air Force'', the amount available for a cyber-
security program is hereby increased by $8,000,000: Provided
further, That the funds are made available for the cyber-
security program to conduct research and development on
issues relating to security information assurance and to
facilitate the transition of information assurance technology
to the defense community.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Department of Defense and many other
government agencies are increasing their use and reliance on
information technology for a wide variety of applications.
The growing frequency and increasing sophistication of attacks on the
Defense Department's computer networks is cause for concern. Other
government agencies, as well as the private sector, are also subject to
these attacks on their network infrastructure.
Last year, the Administration organized an exercise to test the
Pentagon's ability to deal with cyber attacks. In this exercise,
several computer specialists from the National Security Agency targeted
computers used by our military forces in the United States and our
forces in the Pacific. Using computers, modems, and software technology
widely available on the Internet, these friendly ``hackers'' were able
to penetrate unclassified military computer networks in Hawaii,
Washington, D.C., Chicago, St. Louis and Colorado.
We need to do more to protect the Defense Department networks that
are critical for the operation of our military forces around the world.
My amendment, which is fully offset, adds $8 million to the Air Force
Information Systems Security Program. The additional funds will be used
for research by the Air Force and will rely on the expertise of two
federally funded research and development centers currently working on
issues of information security. These efforts will facilitate the
development of information security technology for the Armed Forces,
and I urge the Senate to approve it.
amendment no. 3431
(Purpose: To provide additional funding for repair of the Korean War
Veterans Memorial)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
SEC. 8 . ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR KOREAN WAR VETERANS
MEMORIAL.
Section 3 of Public Law 99-572 (40 U.S.C. 1003 note) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Additional Funding.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to amounts made available
under subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary of the Army may
expend, from any funds available to the Secretary on the date
of enactment of this paragraph, $2,000,000 for repair of the
memorial.
``(2) Disposition of funds received from claims.--Any funds
received by the Secretary of the Army as a result of any
claim against a contractor in connection with construction of
the memorial shall be deposited in the general fund of the
Treasury.''.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering would fix
and restore one of our most important monuments, the Korean War
Veterans Memorial. It authorizes the Secretary of the Army to provide,
within existing funds, up to $2 million to complete essential repairs
to the Memorial. Joining me as a cosponsor of this amendment is my
distinguished colleague from Colorado--a Korean War veteran himself--
Senator Campbell.
The Korean War Memorial is the newest war monument in Washington, DC.
It was authorized in 1986 by Public Law 99-752 which established a
Presidential Advisory Board to raise funds and oversee the design of
the project, and charged the American Battle Monuments Commission with
the management of this project. The authorization provided $1 million
in federal funds for the design and initial construction of the
memorial and Korean War Veterans' organizations and the Advisory Board
raised over $13 million in private donations to complete the facility.
Construction on the memorial began in 1992 and it was dedicated on July
27, 1995.
For those who haven't visited, the Memorial is located south of the
Vietnam Veteran's Memorial on the Mall, to the east of the Lincoln
Memorial. Designed by world class Cooper Lecky Architects, the monument
contains a triangular ``field of service,'' with 19 stainless steel,
larger than life statues, depicting a squad of soldiers on patrol. A
curb of granite north of the statues lists the 22 countries of the
United Nations that sent troops in defense of South Korea. To the south
of the patrol stands a wall of black granite, with engraved images of
more than 2,400 unnamed service men and women detailing the countless
ways in which Americans answered the call to service. Adjacent to the
wall is a fountain which is supposed to be encircled by a Memorial
Grove of linden trees, creating a peaceful setting for quiet
reflection. When this memorial was originally created, it was intended
to be a lasting and fitting tribute to the bravery and sacrifice of our
troops who
[[Page S9380]]
fought in the ``Forgotten War.'' Unfortunately, just three years after
its dedication, the monument is not lasting and is no longer fitting.
The Memorial has not functioned as it was originally conceived and
designed and has instead been plagued by a series of problems in its
construction. The grove of 40 linden trees have all died and been
removed from the ground, leaving forty gaping holes. The pipes feeding
the Pool of Remembrance' return system have cracked and the pool has
been cordoned off. The monument's lighting system has been deemed
inadequate and has caused safety problems for those who wish to visit
the site at night. As a result, most of the 1.3 million who visit the
monument each year--many of whom are veterans--must cope with
construction gates or areas which have been cordoned off instead of
experiencing the full effect of the Memorial
Let me read a quote from the Washington Post--from a Korean War
Veteran, John LeGault who visited the site--that I think captures the
frustration associated with not having a fitting and complete tribute
for the Korean War. He says, ``Who cares?'' ``That was the forgotten
war and this is the forgotten memorial.'' Mr. President, we ought not
to be sunshine patriots when it comes to making decisions which affect
our veterans. Too often, we are very high on the contributions that our
military makes in times of crisis, but when a crisis fades from the
scene, we seem to forget about this sacrifice. Our veterans deserve
better.
To resolve these problems and restore this monument to something that
our Korean War Veterans can be proud of, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers conducted an extensive study of the site in an effort to
identify, comprehensively, what corrective actions would be required.
The Corps has determined that an additional $2 million would be
required to complete the restoration of the grove work and replace the
statuary lighting. My amendment would provide the authority for the
funds to make these repairs swiftly and once and for all.
With the 50th anniversary of the Korean War conflict fast
approaching, we must ensure that these repairs are made as soon as
possible. This additional funding would ensure that we have a fitting,
proper, and lasting tribute to those who served in Korea and that we
will never forget those who served in the ``Forgotten War.'' I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
AMENDMENT NO. 3432
(Purpose: To set aside $18,000,000 for the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Assessment for demonstrations of technologies and a pilot scale
facility)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. Of the funds available under title VI for
chemical agents and munitions destruction, Defense, for
research and design, $18,000,000 shall be made available for
the program manager for the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Assessment (under section 8065 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1997) for demonstrations of technologies
under the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment, for planning
and preparation to proceed from demonstration of an
alternative technology immediately into the development of a
pilot-scale facility for the technology, and for the design,
construction, and operation of a pilot facility for the
technology.
AMENDMENT NO. 3433
(Purpose: To authorize the lease of real property at the Naval Air
Warfare Center, Training Systems Division, Orlando, Florida)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8014. (a) The Secretary of the Navy may lease to the
University of Central Florida (in this section referred to as
the ``University''), or a representative or agent of the
University designated by the University, such portion of the
property known as the Naval Air Warfare Center, Training
Systems Division, Orlando, Florida, as the Secretary
considers appropriate as a location for the establishment of
a center for research in the fields of law enforcement,
public safety, civil defense, and national defense.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of
the lease under subsection (a) may not exceed 50 years.
(c) As consideration for the lease under subsection (a),
the University shall--
(1) undertake and incur the cost of the planning, design,
and construction required to establish the center referred to
in that subsection; and
(2) during the term of the lease, provide the Secretary
such space in the center for activities of the Navy as the
Secretary and the University jointly consider appropriate.
(d) The Secretary may require such additional terms and
conditions in connection with the lease authorized by
subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate to
protect the interest of the United States.
Amendment No. 3434
(Purpose: To provide for the funding of a vessel scrapping pilot
program)
On page 99 in between lines 17 and 18, insert the
following:
Sec. 8104. Funds appropriated under O&M Navy are available
for a vessel scrapping pilot program which the Secretary of
the Navy may carry out during fiscal year 1999 and
(notwithstanding the expiration of authority to obligate
funds appropriated under this heading) fiscal year 2000, and
for which the Secretary may define the program scope as that
which the Secretary determines sufficient for gathering data
on the cost of scrapping Government vessels and for
demonstrating cost effective technologies and techniques to
scrap such vessels in a manner that is protective of worker
safety and health and the environment.
AMENDMENT NO. 3435
(Purpose: Relating to the Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. The Department of Defense shall, in allocating
funds for the Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative, give
full consideration to the allocation of funds to the regional
partnerships that will best leverage Department investments
in the DoD Major Shared Resource Centers and Centers with
supercomputers purchased using DoD RDT&E funds, including the
high performance networks associated with such centers.
Amendment No. 3436
(Purpose: To provide $500,000 for payment of subcontractors and
suppliers under an Army services contract)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following
new section: ``From within the funds provided, with the
heading ``Operations and Maintenance, Army'', up to $500,000
shall be available for paying subcontractors and suppliers
for work performed at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, in 1994, under
Army services contract number DACA85-93-C-0065''.
Amendment No. 3437
(Purpose: To designate funds to continue an electronic circuit board
manufacturing program)
On page 99, insert in the appropriate place the following
new general provision: Sec. 8104. Of the funds provided under
Title IV of this Act under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', for Industrial
Preparedness, $2,000,000 shall be made available only for the
Electronic Circuit Board Manufacturing Development Center.
Amendment No. 3438
(Purpose: To reestablish the Commission To Assess the Organization of
the Federal Government To Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction))
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
SEC. . COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE ORGANIZATION OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO COMBAT THE PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION
The Combatting Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Act of 1996 (as contained in Public Law 104-293) is amended--
(1) in section 711(b), in the text above paragraph (1), by
striking ``eight'' and inserting ``twelve'';
(2) in section 711(b)(2), by striking ``one'' and inserting
``three'';
(3) in section 711(b)(4), by striking ``one'' and inserting
``three'';
(4) in section 711(e), by striking ``on which all members
of the Commission have been appointed'' and inserting ``on
which the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999, is
enacted, regardless of whether all members of the Commission
have been appointed''; and
(5) in section 712(c), by striking ``Not later than 18
months after the date of enactment of this Act,'' and
inserting ``Not later than June 15, 1999,''.
amendment no. 3439
(Purpose: To designate funds for the procurement of Multiple Integrated
Laser Engagement System (MILES) training equipment)
On page 99, insert in the appropriate place the following
new general provision: Sec. 8104. Of the funds provided under
Title III of this Act under the heading ``Other Procurement
Army'', for Training Devices, $4,000,000 shall be made
available only for procurement of Multiple Integrated Laser
Engagement System (MILES) equipment to support Department of
Defense Cope Thunder exercises.
amendment no. 3440
(Purpose: To strike the emergency designation for the funds authorized
to be appropriate for the costs of overseas contingency operations)
On page 73, line 4 of the bill, revise the text ``rescinded
from'' to read ``rescinded as of the date of enactment of
this act from''
[[Page S9381]]
amendment no. 3441
(Purpose: To reduce funds available for development of the Army Joint
Tactical Radio and to provide funds for the development of the Army
Near Term Digital Radio)
On page 99, insert in the appropriate place the following
new general provision: Sec. 8104. Within the amounts
appropriated under Title IV of this Act under the heading
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', the
amount available for Joint Tactical Radio is hereby reduced
by $10,981,000, and the amount available for Army Data
Distribution System development is hereby increased by
$10,981,000.
amendment no. 3442
(Purpose: To designate Army Digitization funds for development of the
Digital Intelligence Situation Mapboard)
On page 99, insert in the appropriate place the following
new general provision: Sec. 8104. Of the funds provided under
Title IV of this Act under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', for Digitization,
$2,000,000 shall be made available only for the Digital
Intelligence Situation Mapboard (DISM).
amendment no. 3443
(Purpose: To set aside $5,000,000 for Navy research, development, test,
and evaluation funds for the Shortstop Electronic Protection System,
which is to be developed for use in urban warfare, littoral operations,
and peacekeeping operations)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. Of the funds available for the Navy for research,
development, test, and evaluation under title IV, $5,000,000
shall be available for the Shortstop Electronic Protection
System''.
AMENDMENT NO. 3444
(Purpose: To revise and clarify the authority for Federal support of
National Guard drug interdiction and counterdrug activities)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. (a) Subsection (a)(3) of section 112 of title
32, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``and
leasing of equipment'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``and
equipment, and the leasing of equipment,''.
(b) Subsection (b)(2) of such section is amended to read as
follows:
``(2)(A) A member of the National Guard serving on full-
time National Guard duty under orders authorized under
paragraph (1) shall participate in the training required
under section 502(a) of this title in addition to the duty
performed for the purpose authorized under that paragraph.
The pay, allowances, and other benefits of the member while
participating in the training shall be the same as those to
which the member is entitled while performing duty for the
purpose of carrying out drug interdiction and counter-drug
activities.
``(B) Appropriations available for the Department of
Defense for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities may
be used for paying costs associated with a member's
participation in training described in subparagraph (A). The
appropriation shall be reimbursed in full, out of
appropriations available for paying those costs, for the
amounts paid. Appropriations available for paying those costs
shall be available for making the reimbursements.''.
(c) Subsection (b)(3) of such section is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) A unit or member of the National Guard of a State may
be used, pursuant to a State drug interdiction and counter-
drug activities plan approved by the Secretary of Defense
under this section, to provide services or other assistance
(other than air transportation) to an organization eligible
to receive services under section 508 of this title if--
``(A) the State drug interdiction and counter-drug
activities plan specifically recognizes the organization as
being eligible to receive the services or assistance;
``(B) in the case of services, the provision of the
services meets the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (a) of section 508 of this title; and
``(C) the services or assistance is authorized under
subsection (b) or (c) of such section or in the State drug
interdiction and counter-drug activities plan.''.
(d) Subsection (i)(1) of such section is amended by
inserting after ``drug interdiction and counter-drug law
enforcement activities'' the following: ``, including drug
demand reduction activities,''.
AMENDMENT NO. 3445
(Purpose: To set aside funds for research and surveillance activities
relating to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases)
On page 36, line 22, insert before the period at the end
the following: ``: Provided, That, of the funds available
under this heading, $3,000,000 shall be available for
research and surveillance activities relating to Lyme disease
and other tick-borne diseases''.
AMENDMENT NO. 3446
(Purpose: To make available $3,000,000 for advanced research relating
to solid state dye lasers)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. Of the amounts appropriated by title IV of this
Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army'', $3,000,000 shall be available for
advanced research relating to solid state dye lasers.
AMENDMENT NO. 3447
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to lease a parcel of
real property from the City of Phoenix)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. (a) The Secretary of the Air Force may enter
into an agreement to lease from the City of Phoenix, Arizona,
the parcel of real property described in subsection (b),
together with improvements on the property, in consideration
of annual rent not in excess of one dollar.
(b) The real property referred to in subsection (a) is a
parcel, known as Auxiliary Field 3, that is located
approximately 12 miles north of Luke Air Force Base, Arizona,
in section 4 of township 3 north, range 1 west of the Gila
and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona,
is bounded on the north by Bell Road, on the east by
Litchfield Road, on the south by Greenway Road, and on the
west by agricultural land, and is composed of approximately
638 acres, more or less, the same property that was formerly
an Air Force training and emergency field developed during
World War II.
(c) The Secretary may require such additional terms and
conditions in connection with the lease under subsection (a)
as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the
interests of the United States.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be brief. I rise to offer an
amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 on
behalf of Senator Kyl and myself. The amendment would authorize the
Secretary of The Air Force to enter into an agreement to lease from the
City of Phoenix, Arizona a parcel of land near Luke Air Force Base that
is known as Auxiliary Field 3 for a cost not in excess of one dollar.
I offer this amendment because the U.S. Air Force may foresee a need
to acquire or lease land near Luke Air Force Base to more effectively
manage public and private development compatibility with the Luke Air
Force Base mission. Many communities on the west side of Phoenix are
dedicated to ensuring that the Air Force has the additional flexibility
it may need in the near and long term to meet Air Force operational and
training requirements and preserve its overall readiness.
Mr. President, this simple amendment is discretionary in nature and
meets the criteria which I have ensured that my colleagues must meet
when amendments are offered to appropriations bills. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
amendment no. 3448
(Purpose: To designate Army RDT&E funds for integration and evaluation
of a passenger safety system for heavy tactical trucks)
On page 99, insert in the appropriate place the following
new general provision:
Sec. 8104. Of the funds provided under Title IV of this Act
under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army'', up to $1,300,000 may be made available
only to integrate and evaluate enhanced, active and passive,
passenger safety system for heavy tactical trucks.
amendment no. 3449
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. . Effective on June 30, 1999, section 8106(a) of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I
through VIII of the matter under section 101(b) of Public Law
104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-111; 10 U.S.C. 113 note), is
amended--
(1) by striking out ``not later than June 30, 1997,'', and
inserting in lieu thereof ``not later than June 30, 1999,'';
and
(2) by striking out ``$1,000,000'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``$500,000''.
amendment no. 3450
(Purpose: To increase by $10,000,000 the amount provided for research
and development relating to Persian Gulf illnesses)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. (a) Of the total amount appropriated under title
IV for research, development, test and evaluation, Defense-
wide, for basic research, $29,646,000 is available for
research and development relating to Persian Gulf illnesses.
Mr. HARKIN. I offered an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill
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 illness by $10
million. It is my understanding that the amendment has been accepted.
This is similar to the amendment I offered and was also accepted as
part of the Defense Authorization bill.
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 Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield
[[Page S9382]]
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' claims of illness and
disability. This strained the government's credibility with 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. They 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
way.
To that end, I offer this amendment to increase research into the
illnesses experienced by Persian Gulf veterans by $10 million. The
funds would support much more research, including the evaluation and
treatment of a host of neuro-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 want
the truth. Our veterans answered our nation's call in war, and now we
must answer theirs. Should our priorities include our Gulf War
veterans? I believe the choice is self evident and absolutely clear.
amendment NO. 3451
(Purpose: To reduce funds available for development of the Navy Hard
and Deeply Buried Target Defeat System and to provide funds for the
procurement of Joint Tactical Combat Training System (JTCTS) equipment)
On page 99, insert in the appropriate place the following
new general provision:
Sec. 8104. Within the amounts appropriated under Title IV
of this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Navy'', the amount available for Hard and
Deeply Buried Target Defeat System is hereby reduced by
$9,827,000, and the amount available for Consolidated
Training Systems Development is hereby increased by
$9,827,000.
amendment no. 3452
(Purpose: To require a comprehensive assessment of the TRICARE program)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8014. (a) Not later than six months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report containing a comprehensive assessment of
the TRICARE program.
(b) The assessment under subsection (a) shall include the
following:
(1) A comparison of the health care benefits available
under the health care options of the TRICARE program known as
TRICARE Standard, TRICARE Prime, and TRICARE Extra with the
health care benefits available under the health care plan of
the Federal Employees Health Benefits program most similar to
each such option that has the most subscribers as of the date
of enactment of this Act, including--
(A) the types of health care services offered by each
option and plan under comparison;
(B) the ceilings, if any, imposed on the amounts paid for
covered services under each option and plan under comparison;
and
(C) the timeliness of payments to physicians providing
services under each option and plan under comparison.
(2) An assessment of the effect on the subscription choices
made by potential subscribers to the TRICARE program of the
Department of Defense policy to grant priority in the
provision of health care services to subscribers to a
particular option.
(3) An assessment whether or not the implementation of the
TRICARE program has discouraged medicare-eligible individuals
from obtaining health care services from military treatment
facilities, including--
(A) an estimate of the number of such individuals
discouraged from obtaining health care services from such
facilities during the two-year period ending with the
commencement of the implementation of the TRICARE program;
and
(B) an estimate of the number of such individuals
discouraged from obtaining health care services from such
facilities during the two-year period following the
commencement of the implementation of the TRICARE program.
[[Page S9383]]
(4) An assessment of any other matters that the Comptroller
General considers appropriate for purposes of this section.
(c) In this section:
(1) The term ``Federal Employees Health Benefits program''
means the health benefits program under chapter 89 of title
5, United States Code.
(2) The term ``TRICARE program'' has the meaning given that
term in section 1072(7) of title 10, United States Code.
REQUIRING A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE TRICARE PROGRAM
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this amendment directs the General
Accounting Office to take a close look at the health care benefit that
we provide to our military dependents, retirees, and their survivors.
Enough time has passed since we replaced CHAMPUS with the TRICARE
program that it is now time to see whether or not we are providing a
proper benefit.
When I speak of a ``proper benefit,'' I use a very simple standard. I
want to be sure that our men and women in uniform and their loved ones
are being cared for as well as our civilian federal employees are. The
Federal Employees Health Benefits program (FEHBP) provides civilian
federal employees and retirees with a good health care benefit having a
wide range of patient choice. It's the program that covers all of us in
Congress, and my goal is to make sure that TRICARE is just as good for
our military families.
Mr. President, the FEHBP offers many different managed-care, fee-for-
service, and preferred-provider plans from which to choose. If the
civilian federal employee or retiree finds his or her health care plan
to be inadequate, another plan of the same type can be chosen. For our
military families, it is not so simple. With TRICARE, you only get a
choice of one managed-care, one fee-for-service, or one preferred-
provider plan. To paraphrase Henry Ford, you can pick any HMO-type plan
that you want, as long as you choose TRICARE Prime. And if, for
example, you are unhappy with TRICARE Prime, you either have to live
with it, or go for the one fee-for-service or the one preferred-
provider plan--there are no alternate managed-care plans.
Now, I recognize that a comparison between the TRICARE plans and the
FEHBP plans will have to be very subjective. The comparison should not
be limited simply to objective cost factors, such as co-pays and
premiums, but it must be expansive enough to consider factors such as
patient satisfaction, administrative requirements, ceilings on
reimbursements and timeliness of their payment, covered services, etc.
This is why I want the GAO to do this study. They will be independent
and can use a combination of objective analyses and subjective surveys
and interviews to give us the most clear, unbiased picture.
Of course, we would not have to worry about conducting studies or
figuring out how to compare the quality of TRICARE with the FEHBP if we
provided more customer choice. Ultimately, the best ``study'' of the
quality of a product or service is its acceptance in the marketplace.
For this reason, I have long favored considering Medicare subvention
and making FEHBP available for military beneficiaries as well as
civilians. But, with TRICARE only offering one of each type of plan and
having a captive audience, there are no competitive pressures to keep
providers focused on customer service, so this study is necessary.
I am also concerned that Department of Defense policies with regard
to TRICARE may be further limiting choice. The GAO should identify
reasons why TRICARE Prime enrollees should have priority at Military
Treatment Facilities. This decision may be effectively eliminating the
TRICARE Standard and Extra options because to choose either of these
options may close off treatment at a Military Treatment Facility.
And there is another problem. Medicare-eligible military retirees,
since the implementation of TRICARE are now having a very difficult
time getting to see the doctor at the Military Treatment Facilities, if
not facing an impossibility altogether. Let me explain. Because TRICARE
Prime patients have first priority for medical treatment, retirees who
wish to be served at a Military Treatment Facility have to sign up for
TRICARE Prime--their choice for TRICARE Standard or Extra is
effectively eliminated. But, the worst of it is that Medicare-eligible
retirees are not eligible to participate in TRICARE at all. They and
their Medicare-eligible dependents and survivors, if there are no
appointments available at the Military Treatment Facility, are left
with no military medical benefit, which we all know is contrary to the
promise made to these veterans when they decided to make a career in
the military.
Mr. President, there is no reasonable explanation that I can think of
that could justify a health care benefit for our men and women in
uniform, their dependents, and survivors, and retirees who give and
gave so much of their lives for our country, that is anything less than
what we have provided for ourselves and for civil servants. My
amendment will give us a clear idea whether the military medical
benefit offered is truly ``prime,'' or even ``standard,'' or whether it
is substandard and we need to take action.
amendment no. 3453
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of
the Air Force to enter into one or more multiyear leases of non-
tactical firefighting, crash rescue, or snow removal equipment)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. (a) The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary
of the Air Force may each enter into one or more multiyear
leases of non-tactical firefighting equipment, non-tactical
crash rescue equipment, or non-tactical snow removal
equipment. The period of a lease entered into under this
section shall be for any period not in excess of 10 years.
Any such lease shall provide that performance under the lease
during the second and subsequent years of the contract is
contingent upon the appropriation of funds and shall provide
for a cancellation payment to be made to the lessor if such
appropriations are not made.
(b) Lease payments made under subsection (a) shall be made
from amounts provided in this or future Appropriations Acts.
(c) This section is effective for all fiscal years
beginning after September 30, 1998.
amendment 3454
(Purpose: To provide funds for a Domestic Preparedness Sustainment
Training Center)
At the appropriate place in the bill in Title VIII, insert
the following:
``Sec. . Of the amounts appropriated in this bill for the
Defense Threat Reduction and Treaty Compliance Agency and for
Operations and Maintenance, National Guard, $1,500,000 shall
be available to develop training materials and a curriculum
for a Domestic Preparedness Sustainment Training Center at
Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas.''
amendment 3455
(Purpose: To ensure that a balanced investment is made in the Aerostat
development program)
On page 99, insert in the appropriate place the following
new general provision:
Sec. 8104. Of the funds provided under Title IV of this Act
under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army'', up to $10,000,000 may be made available
only for the efforts associated with building and
demonstrating a deployable mobile large aerostat system
platform.
amendment no. 3456
(Purpose: To provide $150,000 for the redevelopment of Havre Air Force
Base and Training Site, Montana, for public benefit purposes)
On page 99, in between lines 17 and 18, insert before the
period at the end the following: ``: Sec. . That of the
amounts available under this heading, $150,000 shall be made
available to the Bear Paw Development Council, Montana, for
the management and conversion of the Havre Air Force Base and
Training Site, Montana, for public benefit purposes,
including public schools, housing for the homeless, and
economic development''.
amendment no. 3457
(Purpose: To repeal limitations on authority to set rates and waive
requirements for reimbursement of expenses incurred for instruction at
service academies of persons from foreign countries)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. (a) Section 4344(b) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in the second sentence of paragraph (2), by striking
out ``, except that the reimbursement rates may not be less
than the cost to the United States of providing such
instruction, including pay, allowances, and emoluments, to a
cadet appointed from the United States''; and
(2) by striking out paragraph (3).
(b) Section 6957(b) of such title is amended--
(1) in the second sentence of paragraph (2), by striking
out ``, except that the reimbursement rates may not be less
than the cost to the United States of providing such
instruction, including pay, allowances, and emoluments, to a
midshipman appointed from the United States''; and
(2) by striking out paragraph (3).
(c) Section 9344(b) of such title is amended--
(1) in the second sentence of paragraph (2), by striking
out ``, except that the reimbursement rates may not be less
than the cost to
[[Page S9384]]
the United States of providing such instruction, including
pay, allowances, and emoluments, to a cadet appointed from
the United States''; and
(2) by striking out paragraph (3).
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer a simple amendment to the
Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Appropriations bill on behalf of Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchison and myself that merits bipartisan support and speedy
passage.
My amendment would repeal the limitations on the military departments
to waive the requirement for reimbursement of expenses for foreign
students at the service academies. Clearly, the authority to set rates
and waive reimbursement expenses for persons from foreign countries
undergoing instruction at U.S. service academies should rest with our
military departments and not be subject to limitations on their ability
to determine the costs of instruction of foreign nationals.
Mr. President, the Senate Armed Services Committee included this
provision in its version of the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization
bill, however it was subsequently dropped in Conference. The service
academy superintendents all support this legislation, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I request that letters of
support of my amendment from the service academy superintendents and
others be placed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
amendment no. 3458
(Purpose: to make small businesses eligible to participate in the
Indian Subcontracting Incentive Program)
On page 54, strike Section 8023 and insert the following:
Sec. 8023. (a) In addition to the funds provided elsewhere
in this Act, $8,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive
payments authorized by Section 504 of the Indian Financing
Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That contractors
participating in the in the test program established by
section 854 of Public Law 101-189 (15 U.S.C. 637 note) shall
be eligible for the program established by section 504 of the
Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544).
(b) Section 8024 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-56) is amended by striking
out ``That these payments'' and all that follows through
``Provided further,''.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Dorgan's
amendment that would clarify the eligibility of small businesses to
participate in the Indian incentive payment program.
Mr. President, I can assure my colleagues that in establishing this
program, it was our intent to provide incentives to Defense contractors
who would enter into subcontracts with Indian tribal government-
chartered entities and tribal enterprises.
Mr. President, it was not our intent to exclude from the Indian
incentive payment program, those small businesses that might enter into
contracts with the Department of Defense.
It is my understanding that because the original authorizing language
which established the Indian incentive payment program refers to a
subcontracting plan pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 637(d), the Department of
Defense has interpreted that provision to exclude small businesses from
participation in the Indian incentive payment program.
Senator Dorgan's amendment would simply strike the reference to a
subcontracting plan pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 637(d), to make clear that
small businesses who enter into contracts with the Department of
Defense may participate in the Indian incentive payment program by
entering into subcontracts with tribally-chartered entities or tribal
enterprises.
Mr. President, I believe we should include Senator Dorgan's amendment
in S. 2132.
I ask unanimous consent to have two pertinent letters printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC, December 19, 1997.
Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Byron: This is in response to your letter dated
October 31, 1997, concerning the Department of Defense Indian
Subcontracting Incentive Program.
The situation you describe is the consequence of a
provision in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
1998. Specifically, section 8024 of that Act appropriates $8
million for incentive payments authorized by section 504 of
the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544). Section
8024, however, restricts the availability of such incentive
payments to contractors that have submitted subcontracting
plans pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 637(d). However, subsection
637(d)(7) expressly provides that the provisions relating to
submission of a subcontracting plan under section 637(d) do
not apply to small businesses. Consequently, the $8 million
is not available for payments to small business under this
authority.
Accordingly, in order to permit small businesses to
participate in the program supported by the $8 million
available under section 8024, new legislation, rather than an
administrative change, would be required. We strongly support
maximum practicable participation of small businesses in the
performance of Department of Defense contracts, and
accordingly we intend to explore, in coordination with the
Office of Management and Budget, whether to advance a
legislative proposal to eliminate the restrictive language in
section 8024 in future years appropriations acts.
I appreciate your bringing this issue to our attention, and
trust that this responds to your concerns.
Sincerely,
William Cohen.
____
Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition and Technology,
Washington, DC, November 12, 1997.
Mr. Marc A. King,
Vice President, Business Development,
GMA Cover Corp., Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. King: This responds to our telephone conversation
of October 9, 1997 relative to whether or not small
businesses are eligible to receive incentive payments under
the DoD Indian Subcontracting Incentive Program. My staff, in
consultation with both the Office of General Counsel and the
Office of Defense Procurement, thoroughly reviewed the FY
1998 DoD Appropriations Act and our implementing policy. The
conclusion reached based on that review is that the
legislation authorizes incentive payments from the $8 Million
appropriated only to firms who submit subcontracting plans
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 637(d). Since 15 U.S.C. 637(d) does not
apply to small businesses, even if GMA Cover Corporation
agreed to submit a subcontracting plan, such a submission
would not be pursuant to this provision of the law.
Consequently, payment of incentives for subcontracting with
Indian organizations or Indian-owned business enterprises
using the $8 Million appropriated in the FY 1998 DoD
Appropriations Act is not authorized for GMA Cover
Corporation or other small businesses.
As the restriction on the use of the $8 Million
appropriated for Indian subcontracting incentive payments to
large businesses is part of the FY 1998 Appropriations Act,
it cannot be eliminated through regulations developed by the
Department to implement the legislation. However, since it is
our objective to provide for the maximum practicable
participation of Indian organizations and Indian-owned
business enterprises in our contracts, I have submitted a
legislative initiative proposing an amendment to the FY 1998
Appropriations Act language that will allow incentive
payments to small businesses which subcontract to Indian
organizations or Indian-owned business enterprises.
The point of contact for this subject is Mr. Ivory Fisher.
You may contact him directly on this or any other issues
associated with the Indian Subcontracting Incentive Program.
He may be reached at (703) 697-1688.
Robert L. Neal, Jr.,
Director, Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
AMENDMENT NO. 3459
(Purpose: To provide for full funding of the testing of six chemical
demilitarization technologies under the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Assessment)
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. Out of the funds available for the Department of
Defense under title VI of this Act for chemical agents and
munitions, Defense, or the unobligated balances of funds
available for chemical agents and munitions destruction,
Defense, under any other Act making appropriations for
military functions administered by the Department of Defense
for any fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense may use not
more than $25,000,000 for the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Assessment to complete the demonstration of alternatives to
baseline incineration for the destruction of chemical agents
and munitions and to carry out the pilot program under
section 8065 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
1997 (section 101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-
101; 50 U.S.C. 1521 note). The amount specified in the
preceding sentence is in addition to any other amount that is
made available pursuant to any other provision of this Act
out of funds appropriated under title VI of this Act to
complete the demonstration of the alternatives and to carry
out the pilot program: Provided, That none of the funds shall
be taken from any ongoing operational chemical munition
destruction programs.
Amendment No. 3460
(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate regarding the use of child
soldiers in armed conflict)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
Findings:
child experts estimate that as many as 250,000 children
under the age of 18 are currently serving in armed forces or
armed
[[Page S9385]]
groups in more than 30 countries around the world;
contemporary armed conflict has caused the deaths of
2,000,000 minors in the last decade alone, and has left an
estimated 6,000,000 children seriously injured or permanently
disabled;
children are uniquely vulnerable to military recruitment
because of their emotional and physical immaturity, are
easily manipulated, and can be drawn into violence that they
are too young to resist or understand;
children are most likely to become child soldiers if they
are poor, separated from their families, displaced from their
homes, living in a combat zone, or have limited access to
education;
orphans and refugees are particularly vulnerable to
recruitment;
one of the most egregious examples of the use of child
soldiers is the abduction of some 10,000 children, some as
young as 8 years of age, by the Lord's Resistance Army (in
this resolution referred to as the ``LRA'') in northern
Uganda;
the Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices for 1997 reports that in Uganda the LRA kills,
maims, and rapes large numbers of civilians, and forces
abducted children into ``virtual slavery as guards,
concubines, and soldiers'';
children abducted by the LRA are forced to raid and loot
villages, fight in the front line of battle against the
Ugandan army and the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA),
serve as sexual slaves to rebel commanders, and participate
in the killing of other children who try to escape;
former LRA child captives report witnessing Sudanese
government soldiers delivering food supplies, vehicles,
ammunition, and arms to LRA base camps in government-
controlled southern Sudan;
children who manage to escape from LRA captivity have
little access to trauma care and rehabilitation programs, and
many find their families displaced, unlocatable, dead, or
fearful of having their children return home;
Graca Machel, the former United Nations expert on the
impact of armed conflict on children, identified the
immediate demobilization of all child soldiers as an urgent
priority, and recommended the establishment through an
optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the
Child of 18 as the minimum age for recruitment and
participation in armed forces; and
the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United
Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations High
Commission on Refugees, and the United Nations High
Commissioner on Human Rights, as well as many nongovernmental
organizations, also support the establishment of 18 as the
minimum age for military recruitment and participation in
armed conflict:
Sec. 1. (a) The Senate hereby--
(1) deplores the global use of child soldiers and supports
their immediate demobilization;
(2) condemns the abduction of Ugandan children by the LRA;
(3) calls on the Government of Sudan to use its influence
with the LRA to secure the release of abducted children and
to halt further abductions; and
(4) encourages the United States delegation not to block
the drafting of an optional protocol to the Convention on the
Rights of the Child that would establish 18 as the minimum
age for participation in armed conflict.
(b) It is the sense of the Senate that the President and
the Secretary of State should--
(1) support efforts to end the abduction of children by the
LRA, secure their release, and facilitate their
rehabilitation and reintegration into society;
(2) not block efforts to establish 18 as the minimum age
for participation in conflict through an optional protocol to
the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and
(3) provide greater support to United Nations agencies and
nongovernmental organizations working for the rehabilitation
and reintegration of former child soldiers into society.
Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy
of this resolution to the President and the Secretary of
State.
amendment no. 3461
On page 99, insert in the appropriate place the following
new general provision:
Sec. 8104. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Defense shall obligate the funds provided for
Counterterror Technical Support in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1998 (under title IV of Public Law 105-
56) for the projects and in the amounts provided for in House
Report 105-265 of the House of Representatives, 105th
Congress, first session: Provided, That the funds available
for the Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis Project should be
executed through cooperation with the Office of National Drug
Control Policy.
amendment no. 3462
(Purpose: To designate funds for the development and testing of
alternate turbine engines for missiles)
On page 99, insert in the appropriate place the following
new general provision:
Sec. 8104. Of the funds provided under Title IV of this Act
under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Navy'', up to $1,000,000 may be made available
only for the development and testing of alternate turbine
engines for missiles.
amendment no. 3463
(Purpose: to guarantee the right of all active duty military personnel,
merchant mariners, and their dependents to vote in Federal, State, and
local elections)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . VOTING RIGHTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL.
(a) Guarantee of Residency.--Article VII of the Soldiers'
and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (50 U.S.C. 5890 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 704. (a) For purposes of voting for an office of the
United States or of a State, a person who is absent from a
State in compliance with military or naval orders shall not,
solely by reason of that absence--
``(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in
that State;
``(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or domicile in
any other Sate; or
``(3) be deemed to have become resident in or a resident of
any other State.
``(b) In this section, the term `State' includes a
territory or possession of the United States, a political
subdivision of a State, territory, or possession, and the
District of Columbia.''.
(b) State Responsibility To Guarantee Military Voting
Rights:
(1) Registration and balloting.--Section 102 of the
Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-
1) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(a) Elections for Federal Offices.--''
before ``Each State shall--''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Elections for State and Local Offices.--Each State
shall--
``(1) permit absent informed services voters to use
absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee
ballot in general, special, primary, and run-off elections
for State and local offices; and
``(2) accept and process, with respect to any election
described in paragraph (1), any otherwise valid voter
registration application from an absent uniformed services
voter if the application is received by the appropriate State
election official not less than 30 days before the
election.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The heading for title I of such
Act is amended by striking out ``FOR FEDERAL OFFICE''.
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, inset the following:
Sec. 8014. From amounts made available by this Act, up to
$10,0000,0000 may be available to convert the Eighth Regiment
National Guard Armory into a Chicago Military Academy:
Provided, That the Academy shall provide a 4-year college
prepatory curriculum combined with a mandatory JROTC
instruction program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments
en bloc.
The amendments (No. 3420 through 3464) were agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I say with regard to the unresolved
issues: We ask Senator DeWine or his staff to show us the drug
interdiction amendment; the D'Amato Serbia amendment; the two Coats
amendments on SOS, and the next QDR, so that we can proceed to review
those.
Similarly, we have a series on the Democratic side that we have not
seen, and I urge that we see those: the Dodd Army pension issues; the
Harkin vets' meals issue. Other than that, I believe we have seen them
all.
I might state, it appears that the one amendment that will take the
longest time to dispose of is Senator Durbin's amendment, and I see he
is here. I invite him to offer his amendment so that we might determine
how to handle it.
Is the Senator prepared to suggest any kind of a time arrangement
with regard to that? We would like to have a vote sometime around 8
o'clock, to make sure people understand we are going to stay here until
we get done.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield.
Mr. DURBIN. I am open to the Senator's request for a time limitation.
Whatever the Senator from Alaska would like to suggest, I would
certainly entertain.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am willing to suggest to the Senator
that we divide the time equally between now and 8 p.m., at which time
it would be my intention to move to table the Senator's amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. I agree to that. I have no objection. Before agreeing,
could I ask the Senator from Alaska, time will be equally divided?
Mr. STEVENS. And I add to that, there will be no second-degree
amendments to this motion prior to the motion to table; after the
motion to table, it is open.
[[Page S9386]]
Mr. DURBIN. And further debate?
Mr. STEVENS. And further debate; obviously, there is no limitation if
the amendment is not tabled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3465
(Purpose: To prohibit the availability of funds for offensive military
operations except in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 3465.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. No funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to initiate or conduct
offensive military operations by United States Armed Forces
except in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution, which vests in Congress the power to declare
war and take certain other related actions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is the usual custom in the Senate as
long as I have been here--almost 19 or 20 months now--to dispense with
the reading of an amendment. In this case, I did not--first, because
the amendment in its entirety is very brief, only one page; and,
second, I wanted those who are following this debate to hear each word
of the amendment, because in the wording of this amendment I think we
have an important decision to make on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
This amendment which I offer reaffirms that the United States should
only go to war in accordance with the war powers vested in the Congress
by the Constitution. My colleague, who has just joined us on the floor,
Senator Byrd of West Virginia, carries a well-worn and tattered version
of that Constitution with him. I bet he has it on his person as this
moment--and I win my bet--and Senator Byrd refers to it frequently to
remind all of us that we, when we took the oath of office to become
Members of the U.S. Senate, swore to uphold this Constitution.
The section of the Constitution which my amendment addresses is one
which is central to the power of the U.S. Senate and the power of
Congress. Article I, section 8, includes in the powers of Congress, the
power:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal and
make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.
Most constitutional scholars will know the meaning of the term
``marque and reprisal.'' We have read it many times, but for those of
us who need to be refreshed, that is an effort, short of war, where the
United States, short of some commitment of major troop forces and the
like, would seek to impose its will or stand for its own national
security.
The most operative section of Article I, section 8, are the simple
words ``To declare War.''
This amendment would prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense for ``offensive military operations,'' except in
accordance with Article I, section 8, which specifically gives to
Congress, and Congress alone, the power to declare war and take other
actions to govern and regulate the Armed Forces.
A similar amendment was offered by Congressman David Skaggs of
Colorado and Congressman Tom Campbell of California in a bipartisan
fashion. It has passed the House of Representatives. It is part of the
Department of Defense appropriations bill, which will be considered in
conference with the bill that we are debating.
This amendment that I offer today reaffirms that the Constitution
favors the Congress in the decision to go to war, and that Members of
Congress have a constitutional responsibility that they cannot ignore
with regard to the offensive use of Armed Forces. Why is this
necessary? Let me quote from a scholar who has written on this subject
extensively. Louis Fisher is a senior specialist in the separation of
powers with the Congressional Research Service at the Library of
Congress. He wrote in an article entitled ``Sidestepping Congress:
Presidents Acting Under the UN and NATO:
Truman in Korea, Bush in Iraq, Clinton in Haiti and
Bosnia--in each instance, a President circumvented Congress
by relying either on the UN or NATO. President Bush also
stitched together a multilateral alliance before turning to
Congress at the eleventh hour to obtain statutory authority.
Each exercise of power built a stronger base for unilateral
Presidential action, no matter how illegal, unconstitutional
and undemocratic. The attitude, increasingly, is not to do
things the right way, in accordance with the Constitution and
our laws, but to do the ``right thing.'' It is an attitude of
autocracy, if not monarchy. How long do we drift in these
currents before discovering that the waters are hazardous for
constitutional government?
On January 12, 1991, the Congress, in addition to authorizing the use
of force to drive Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, took an important vote
asserting its constitutional responsibilities and insisting that the
President follow the wisdom of the framers of our Constitution when
considering a question as serious as war. Despite the vocal opposition
of the Bush White House, the House of Representatives in which I served
voted 302-131 in favor of a resolution that I offered with Congressman
Bennett of Florida. You may recall what happened. When Saddam Hussein
of Iraq invaded Kuwait, there was fear that he would continue and then
invade Saudi Arabia. The United States began positioning forces in
Saudi Arabia. At the invitation of the Saudis, we brought in a
sufficient force to at least discourage, if not deter, Saddam Hussein.
Over time, it became clear that the force in place was growing and
the intention was just not to protect Saudi Arabia, but in fact to
remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. At that moment, the nature of our
commitment changed, and at that moment, the congressional
responsibility changed, from my point of view. We were no longer in
Saudi Arabia just at the invitation of the Saudis to defend; we were
preparing a massive military force to, in fact, invade Kuwait and to
oust the Iraqis. We knew that that would necessarily involve the loss
of life, and many of us in Congress believed that it clearly fit within
the four corners of Article I, section 8, that Congress should act and,
in fact, we did. There was an extensive debate on the floor of the
Senate, as well as the House of Representatives, and ultimately,
Congress voted to authorize the use of force by the President--
President Bush at the time--in order to push the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
Another important congressional action was a 1994 Senate resolution
rejecting the Clinton administration's claim that the United Nations
Security Council 940 constituted ``authorization for the deployment of
U.S. Armed Forces in Haiti under the Constitution of the United
States.'' The Senate passed this resolution by a resounding 99-0 vote.
The framers never intended the Armed Forces to be employed by the
Executive as a blunt instrument for enforcing U.S. foreign policy
without congressional approval. Yet, in the Iraq crisis earlier this
year, and in the unstable situation in Kosovo today, that is exactly
what we have seen. Absent a reaffirmation by Congress of its proper
constitutional war powers, we will certainly see it again. The time for
this amendment is now. I will speak to the Kosovo situation toward the
close of my opening statement.
Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution, the so-called
war powers clause, vests in Congress this power that I have read. Other
clauses of the same article I, section 8 vests in Congress the power to
``define and punish piracies'' and ``offenses against the Law of
Nations,'' ``raise and support armies,'' ``to provide and maintain a
navy,'' and ``make rules for the government and regulation of the land
and naval forces,'' and ``to provide for organizing,'' arming, and
disciplining the militia, and ``governing such part of them as may be
employed in the service of the United States.''
Very significantly, clause 18 of this section gives Congress the
power to ``make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing powers.'' This clause clearly
states that it is Congress that makes the laws for the regulation of
the Armed Forces, especially in matters of war.
Article II, section 2 of the Constitution states:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several
states, when called into the actual service of the United
States.''
That is all the war powers vested in the President by the
Constitution. It is instructive for us to look back at the
[[Page S9387]]
debate which gave rise to these constitutional provisions.
Comments by the framers of the Constitution clearly indicate their
intent in favor of Congress in matters relating to the offensive use of
military force.
James Wilson, speaking at the Pennsylvania State Convention on the
Adoption of the Federal Constitution, argued that the system of checks
and balances built into the Constitution ``will not hurry us into war;
it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a
single man or a single body of men to involve us in such distress; for
the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at
large.''
No one less than Thomas Jefferson explained that he desired Congress
to be ``an effectual check to the dog of war.''
James Madison wrote that Congress would have the power to initiate
war, though the President could act immediately ``to repel sudden
attacks'' without congressional authorization.
Roger Sherman further delineated on the President's war powers: ``The
executive should be able to repel and not to commence war.''
Constitutional scholar Louis Henkin of Columbia University wrote this
in 1987:
There is no evidence that the framers contemplated any
significant independent role--or authority--for the president
as commander in chief when there was no war. . . . The
president's designation as commander in chief . . . appears
to have implied no substantive authority to use the Armed
Forces, whether for war (unless the United States were
suddenly attacked) or for peacetime purposes, except as
Congress directed.
International law scholar, John Bassett Moore, wrote in 1944:
There can hardly be room for doubt that the framers of the
Constitution, when they vested in Congress the power to
declare war, never imagined that they were leaving it to the
Executive to use the military and naval forces of the United
States all over the world for the purpose of actually
coercing other nations, occupying their territory, and
killing their soldiers and citizens, all according to his own
notions of the fitness of things, as long as he called his
action something other than `war' or persisted in calling it
peace.
The constitutional framework adopted by the framers for the war power
is remarkably clear in its basic principles. The authority to initiate
war lay with Congress. Other U.S. Presidents have affirmed this
interpretation of war powers under the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln wrote this in 1848:
This, our (Constitutional) Convention understood to be the
most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved
to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the
power of bringing this oppression upon us.
Fast forward 100 years into the 20th century, as we debated the
possibility of creating a United Nations. The U.N. Charter was written
against the backdrop of the disaster of the Treaty of Versailles and
President Wilson's determination to make foreign policy without
Congress. When President Wilson submitted that treaty to the Senate in
1919, he attached the covenant of the League of Nations. Senator Henry
Cabot Lodge offered a number of reservations, specifically including a
protection of the prerogative of Congress, and Congress alone, to
declare war. President Wilson called this reservation ``a nullification
of the treaty.'' The issue was joined. The Senate rejected the treaty,
and thereby the League of Nations, in 1919 and again in 1920.
In the midst of World War II, when the concept of another world
organization began to form, care was taken not to cross the line that
had doomed the League of Nations. Any commitment of U.S. forces to a
world body would require prior authorization by both Houses of
Congress. Debate on the Hill between the House and Senate had more to
do with each body's prerogative and role than the underlying
assumption. Even under the auspices of the United Nations,
congressional approval was necessary before troops could be committed.
Section 6 of the United Nations Participation Act is explicit.
Agreements ``shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by
appropriate act or joint resolution.''
Ultimately the decision was reached that both Houses of Congress--not
just the Senate under its treaty authority--was necessary.
Soon after President Roosevelt's death, President Harry Truman sent a
cable from the conference in Potsdam that led to the establishment of
the U.N., stating that all agreements involving U.S. troop commitments
in the U.N. would first have to be approved by both Houses of Congress.
President Eisenhower assured the press, in January of 1956, in an
often-quoted statement, ``When it comes to a matter of war, there is
only one place I would go, and that is the Congress of the United
States and tell them what I believe. I will never be guilty of any kind
of action that can be interpreted as war until Congress, which has
constitutional authority, says so. I am not going to order any troops
into anything that can be interpreted as war until Congress directs
it.''
In the creation of NATO, Secretary of State Dean Acheson told the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1949 that the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization ``does not mean the United States would
automatically be at war if one of the other signatory nations were the
victim of an armed attack. Under our Constitution the Congress alone
has the power to declare war.''
Then came Korea. President Truman sent U.S. troops in 1950 without
ever seeking, or obtaining, congressional authority. By historical
fluke, the Soviet Union was absent from the U.N. Security Council when
a crucial vote was taken responding to the possibility that the Korean
peninsula would be overrun. Without a Soviet veto, the U.N. moved
forward, and President Truman rationalized the use of force in this
``police action'' to uphold the rule of law.
I recall that particularly, because my two older brothers served in
the Korean war, and there was an ongoing joke about the fact that this
was just a ``police action.'' They knew better. All of the families and
all of those involved knew that it was, in fact, a war.
The courts, too, have supported the constitutional prerogatives of
Congress with regard to war-making, including the implied
constitutional power to ``authorize'' war.
The Supreme Court in Bas v. Tingy, in 1800 said, ``Congress is
empowered to declare general war, or Congress may wage a limited war;
limited in place, in objects, and in time. . . .''
Chief Justice Marshall, writing in Talbot v. Seeman in 1801: ``The
whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States,
vested in Congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as
guides in this inquiry.''
U.S. Circuit Court, New York, U.S. v. Smith, 1806: ``It is the
exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state
of war.''
More recently, during the Persian Gulf episode, a case was filed in
the U.S. district court in Washington. I joined with petitioners who
filed this action to ask the court to spell out the power of Congress
when it came to the declaration of war. The court rejected the Justice
Department's contention that ``the question whether an offensive action
taken by American armed forces constitutes an act of war (to be
initiated by a declaration of war) or an `offensive military attack'
(presumably undertaken by the President in his capacity as Commander in
Chief) is not one of objective fact but involves an exercise of
judgment based upon all the vagaries of foreign affairs and national
security.''
The court said, ``This claim on behalf of the Executive is far too
sweeping to be accepted by the courts. If the Executive had the sole
power to determine that any particular offensive military operation, no
matter how vast, does not constitute war-making but only an offensive
military attack, the congressional power to declare war will be at the
mercy of a semantic decision by the Executive. Such an `interpretation'
would evade the plain language of the Constitution, and it cannot
stand.''
Mr. President, over the last 40 or 45 years, Congress has virtually
ceded its constitutional war powers responsibilities to the President.
Many of the significant instances of use of force by the Executive
without congressional authorization, including the only major
unauthorized war in Korea, and localized conflicts in the Dominican
Republic, Grenada, and Panama, among others, occurred during this
period.
I will not visit that sad and contentious chapter of American history
surrounding the Vietnam war, but suffice
[[Page S9388]]
it to say that after that war Congress made the decision, through the
passage of legislation, to take a more active role in the
decisionmaking process.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution, which then-Armed Services Committee
Chairman John Stennis called ``an important step in this Congress to
assume its duty in representing the people of this Nation,''
unfortunately has done little to slow down the gradual assumption of
war powers claimed by successive administrations or to embolden
Congress to properly exercise its war powers responsibilities under the
Constitution.
Even in signing the congressional authorization of the use of force
against Iraq in 1991, President Bush went to great pains to emphasize
his claim that he possessed constitutional authority to act. ``As I
made clear to congressional leaders at the outset, my request for
congressional support did not, and my signing of this resolution does
not, constitute any change in the longstanding position of the
Executive Branch on either the President's constitutional authority to
use the Armed Forces to defend vital U.S. interests, or the
constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.''
The Clinton administration echoed President Bush's comments and even
took it one step further.
During her congressional testimony during the Iraq crisis this last
February, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spoke of ``the
President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to use armed
forces to protect our national interests.''
In a Statement of Administration policy threatening a veto of the
House version of this bill if the Skaggs-Campbell amendment were
included, the administration stated that, ``The President must be able
to act decisively to protect U.S. national security and foreign policy
interests.''
I do not believe that the framers of our Constitution would have ever
accepted such inflated claims of executive authority, or the idea the
Armed Forces should be used by the President as a device for
implementing administration foreign policy, without the approval of
Congress.
President Bush's comments notwithstanding, Congress made a good start
in regaining its proper constitutional war powers in its thorough 1991
debate and vote to authorize the war in the Persian Gulf. Congress
affirmed at that time that its responsibilities extended far beyond
merely paying the bills for Presidents' wars.
Now it is time for the Congress to take the next step. This amendment
will restore the proper constitutional balance between the executive
and legislative branches in deciding when or if the United States is to
go to war.
Mr. President, in the time that I have served on Capitol Hill, in
both the House and Senate, it has been my sad responsibility on several
occasions to attend funerals in my home district, in my congressional
district, for the families of those who have fallen in combat.
I can't think of a sadder occasion--one of the saddest that I can
recall--than the one that involved the sending of Marines to Lebanon,
putting them in harm's way, and after a terrible bombing of the
barracks, the loss of life of a young man from Springfield, IL. Time
and again, I thought at those sad services that there is a legitimate
question the family could ask of their elected representative in
Congress, and now in the U.S. Senate. Was I part of the decision that
led to the war that took their son's life? Because the Constitution
makes it clear that I should have been part of that decision. In so
many instances, I was not; the decision was made by the President. The
only course for Congress is control of the purse, and virtually nothing
else. As a direct result, we lost lives without the American people
speaking to the question of war through their elected Congress.
I caution my colleagues to read carefully this amendment and to
realize that it does more than assert our constitutional authority to
declare war. It also asserts our responsibility. Be careful for what
you wish because with the passage of this amendment and the reassertion
of our constitutional responsibility, we will be and should be called
on more frequently to make important decisions about committing
American troops.
There is one operative and very important word in this amendment. It
is the word ``offensive,'' as in offensive military operations. So the
Record is eminently clear, there is no doubt in my mind nor in anything
I have read that the President of the United States, as Commander in
Chief, has the power to protect American citizens and the property of
the United States. He need not come to the Congress and seek our
approval when he is, in fact, defending Americans and their property.
We are talking about a separate circumstance, a circumstance where
instead of taking a defensive action, the President decides to take an
offensive action.
I might also add that for those who say, clearly the Senator from
Illinois is offering this amendment because he is concerned about some
current conflict, well, yes, I am concerned. I am concerned about any
conflict that involves American lives, but that isn't what motivates me
to join the gentleman from Colorado who offered this amendment in the
House of Representatives. As I mentioned earlier, it was almost 7 years
ago that I joined Congressman Bennett of Florida in a similar effort. I
do believe this principle is sound, and those who want to gainsay this
effort should know that I have tried to stand by this principle through
the time that I have been in Congress.
Is there a need for us to consider it now? I will leave that to your
judgment. Consider the statements made by Robert Gelbard, special
representative of the President and Secretary of State on
Implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, when he spoke before the
House International Relations Committee in Washington on July 23, 1998,
relative to the tragedy in Kosovo.
Mr. Gelbard said:
In NATO councils, planning for possible NATO action is
nearly completed. While no decision has been made regarding
the use of force, all options, including robust military
intervention in Kosovo, remain on the table. NATO planning is
on track and Milosevic understands that this is no idle
threat. The deteriorating situation in Kosovo is a threat to
regional peace and security. The potential for spillover into
neighboring States remains a paramount concern. We and our
allies have made clear to President Milosevic that spillover
of the conflict into Albania or Macedonia will not be
tolerated.
Make no mistake, if Mr. Gelbard's statement is a statement of
administration policy, the administration is poised to initiate an
offensive military action relative to Kosovo, an action which I believe
clearly requires congressional approval, If the men and women in
service to our country who are presently in Bosnia--and I believe the
number is about 6,900--should be called to take offensive military
action and lives are lost, from all that I have read, it is clearly in
derogation of article I, section 8 of the Constitution. This President,
my President, any President, has the responsibility to come to Congress
to seek our approval. Of course, then the responsibility is on our
shoulders to decide whether or not this is in America's national
security interest.
I ask my colleagues in the Senate in considering this amendment to
consider the historical perspective here. For the first time since
World War II, when President Franklin Roosevelt hobbled up the steps to
take the podium for a Joint Session of Congress in the House of
Representatives, asking for a declaration of war, we will state in
clear and unequivocal terms that we are asserting our constitutional
responsibility and authority when it comes to a declaration of war.
I understand that this will require more dialogue and conversation
between the executive and legislative branches about our foreign
policy, and particularly about committing troops, but I do believe that
is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Those of us who
must face the families and explain to them why their daughters and
sons, their husbands, their wives and friends and relatives are called
on to not only serve this country, but stand in harm's way and risk
their lives have to have the authority to stand before them and say we
have done our part, we have played our role, we have made the judgment,
the judgment which the Constitution gives to us and us alone to make.
At this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, to add Senator
Feingold as an original cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page S9389]]
Mr. DURBIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me some time?
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I can't get started in 9 minutes on this
subject.
Mr. DURBIN. I wonder if the Senator from West Virginia might be able
to secure some time from the other side. I would be happy to ask, if
there is anyone in the Chamber. They might be called for that purpose.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I was not in the Chamber when the agreement
was entered into. My friend knew of my interest in speaking on the
amendment, and I wish I had been protected.
Mr. DURBIN. May I ask the Chair, it was my understanding that at
about quarter of 7 we agreed we would debate this until 8 o'clock
equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DURBIN. That is correct. That is how time was calculated. I am
sorry; I apologize to the Senator from West Virginia, whom I asked to
come to the floor, and I would be glad to give him every minute
remaining. I am sorry that I had gone as long as I did, because I am
anxious to hear his remarks.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I don't know how much time the opponents of
this amendment will require.
Mr. President, I think I will just ask for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. I wish to thank the opponents for offering 10 minutes to
me, but I feel that I will just ask that my speech be printed in the
Record.
On a matter of this gravity, I am disappointed that the Senate has
entered into an agreement to speak for what would amount to about 1
hour and 15 minutes for both opponents and proponents. Of course, the
distinguished Senator from Illinois is preeminently correct in what he
has said about the Constitution and what he has said about the efforts
toward aggrandizement on the part of this administration and most
recent administration when it comes to the war powers.
We have in the Senate particularly, may I say, additional
responsibilities over those of the House in this area of war powers
because of the Constitution and provisions therein, and it seems to me
that we ought to take a little more time when it comes to debating an
amendment of this importance. This is an amendment that is calculated
to protect the prerogatives of the Senate when it comes to our
constitutional powers and duties, and here we are limited to 1 hour and
15 minutes.
In saying this, of course, I am complaining, but I also want to thank
Mr. Durbin and I want to thank Mr. Stevens for their consideration and
kindness in offering to give me some additional time.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before the Senator from West Virginia
leaves the floor, I have just contacted the majority in an effort to
postpone the vote so we can extend this debate. I certainly would like
the Senator from West Virginia to have an opportunity to state his
position clearly. I believe it will be a valuable addition to this
debate. I will be happy to afford an equal amount of time to the other
side, so there is no disadvantage created.
Before I make that unanimous consent request, I have asked the
majority side if there is objection.
Mr. STEVENS. What? I object. Just a second.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. If I might ask the Senator from Alaska, Senator Byrd has
come to the floor to speak to this issue. I was wondering if it might
be allowed by unanimous consent to extend --postpone the vote for a
sufficient time so that each side could have an equal amount of time,
to give the Senator from West Virginia his opportunity.
Mr. STEVENS. I say to the Senator, I have talked with Senator Byrd.
We are perfectly prepared to have him continue to take time.
Under a unanimous consent agreement, at 8 o'clock we have Senators
coming back to vote, and hopefully we can vote at approximately that
time. I don't know how long my good friend is going to speak, but I
will limit the amount of time spent in opposition. We will just make
the motion to table when the time comes. We do not want to extend it
now. We are going to have to be here until 3 or 4 o'clock in the
morning as it is, so I object to any further change in this time
agreement, and I urge my good friend from West Virginia to make his
statement. He knows we will accommodate him with such time as he needs.
But let's not change the time agreement yet.
____________________