[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.

                          ____________________