Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9389-S9407]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding when the Senator
returns to the floor, Senator Byrd will speak. I state to the Senate,
there is substantial opposition to this amendment. I am one who voted
against the War Powers Act, but I think this goes too far. It is an
amendment that should be considered by the Armed Services Committee and
not debated at the last minute on an appropriations bill.
In the old days, we had a point of order against legislation on an
appropriations bill. This is purely legislation on an appropriations
bill. That point of order is not available to us now, but the concept
is still there, and that is what we are trying to establish once
again--the concept that we limit this to relevant amendments to the
provisions of this bill that regard spending of money for our defense
in the fiscal year 1999.

[[Page S9390]]

This is a provision that is ongoing for years. It is not related to
this bill. It is not a matter that was before the Senate Appropriations
Committee in any way, and it should be part of the Armed Services'
consideration. There was an Armed Services bill brought before us
before. It would have been perfectly proper to have that brought up at
that time in connection with the Armed Services' bill. But I do not
think it is proper to bring it up in this bill.
For that reason, as I said before, when the time for Senator Byrd has
expired, I intend to move to table the amendment. But, as I indicated
to him, I offer him the full amount of time that was allocated to this
side to present his statement, plus what is left to the Senator from
Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Could I ask for clarification of the time remaining to
both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 4\1/2\ minutes.
The Senator from Alaska, 32 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum, the time to be
charged to our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding the Senator from Illinois will
use the remainder of his time. I understand it is 4 and some-odd
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four-and-a-half minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding Senator Byrd, to my great regret,
is not going to make his statement. Under the circumstances, I yield
back the remainder of our time and ask that the time of the Senator
from Illinois start at 4\1/2\ minutes before 8 o'clock, and we will
vote at 8 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I just conferred with Mr. Cortese, the
staff director. I am told that we have but one other Senator who has
indicated an intention to debate an amendment tonight. We are working
now on the remainder of the second managers' package which we should be
able to present to the Senate in about 10 to 15 minutes. I ask the
cloakrooms to send out notice to Senators that after presentation of
that second managers' amendment, I shall move to go to third reading,
unless Senators who have amendments on this list come forth to debate
them.
We have a very serious situation tomorrow morning. Many Senators told
me they want to go to the second funeral of our deceased friend, the
officer who was killed in the line of duty. That means we cannot
commence voting until 1 o'clock.
We have accepted a great many of these amendments and are prepared to
accept them. If Senators want to know whether that is the case, I urge
them to come and review the managers' package.
I will not indicate the name of the Senator who we think wants to
debate the amendment, because he may not want to debate it. If no one
comes after the motion to table the Durbin amendment to present an
amendment, I shall move to go to third reading. It is a debatable
motion, and we may have some debate on that. I recall my good friend
from West Virginia taught me how to do that, Mr. President. So we are
going to proceed along that line. I ask my friend from Hawaii if he
knows of any amendments or any matter to take up at this time.
Mr. INOUYE. No, we are prepared to go to third reading.
Mr. STEVENS. The managers of the bill are prepared to go to third
reading, unless a Senator appears to debate an amendment. I suggest the
absence of a quorum and ask that it extend only until 5 minutes of the
hour of 8 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3465

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, since there is no
one seeking to speak, to speak for 7 minutes in support of the Durbin
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Under the
previous order, debate will end at 5 of the hour.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am asking only to go until 10 of the
hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Thank you very much.
Mr. President, I am going to support the Durbin amendment, and I
admire what he is attempting to do and respect his effort. I am not,
quite frankly, certain it will have its intended effect.
I strongly agree with the views expressed by my friend from Illinois,
that what I call the ``monarchist'' view of the war power has become
the prevalent view at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and it does
not matter whether it is a Democratic President or a Republican
President. And the original framework of the war power clause
envisioned by the Founding Fathers, I think, has been greatly
undermined over the last several decades.
On the question of war power, I believe the Constitution is as clear
as it is plain. Article I, section 8, provides that the Congress has
the power ``to declare War, [and] grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal
. . . .'' Article II, section 2, provides, ``The President shall be
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.''
To be sure, the Commander in Chief ensures that the President has the
sole power to direct U.S. military forces in combat. But that power--
except in very few limited instances--derives totally from
congressional authority. It is not the power to move from a state of
peace to a state of war. It is a power, once the state of war is in
play, to command the forces, but not to change the state.
Until that authority is granted, the President has no inherent power
to send forces to war--except, as I said, in certain very limited
circumstances, such as to repel sudden attacks or to protect the safety
and security of Americans abroad.
On this point, the writings of Alexander Hamilton, a very strong
defender, as the Presiding Officer knows, of Presidential power, is
very instructive. In Federalist No. 69, Hamilton emphasized that the
President's power as Commander in Chief would be ``much inferior'' to
that of the British King, amounting to ``nothing more than the supreme
command and direction of the military and naval forces.''
During the cold war, and during the nuclear age, the thesis arose
that, at a time when the fate of the planet itself appeared to rest on
two men thousands of miles apart, Congress had little choice, or so it
was claimed, but to cede tremendous authority to the Executive.
Unfortunately, despite the end of the cold war, the view that the
President had this authority has continued to survive--and flourish--
under Presidents of both political parties.
On the eve of the gulf war, President Bush insisted that he did not
need congressional authorization to send half a million men and women
into combat with Iraq. I insisted at that time we hold hearings on that
subject and there be a resolution concluding whether or not he had that
power.
More recently, President Clinton asserted sweeping theories about his
power to deploy forces to Haiti and to begin offensive military action
against Iraq.
I believe we need to remedy this constitutional imbalance.
Accordingly, I have offered in the past, and I have drafted,
comprehensive legislation called the Use of Force Act, which is
designed to replace the War Powers Resolution.
The Durbin amendment is far shorter and more direct in its approach.
And although I support it, as I said, I am skeptical that it will
achieve its total desired effect. The Durbin amendment would bar the
use of appropriated funds for ``offensive military operations'' by

[[Page S9391]]

Armed Forces ``except in accordance with Article I, section 8 of the
Constitution.''
I believe the Constitution already says that, that we need not
redeclare that. But I think it is valuable to do it if it sends a
message that we are going to be looking a whole lot closer.
In my view, the President may not use force, except in certain
limited circumstances, without the authorization of the Congress,
period. The war power is not limited to a formal declaration of war--of
which we have had only five in our history. The Founding Fathers had
little interest, it seems, in the ceremonial aspects of war. The real
issue was congressional authorization of war.
As Hamilton noted in Federalist 25, the ``ceremony of a formal
denunciation of war has of late fallen into disuse.'' Obviously, the
founders were not talking about a circumstance where the only
circumstance that the Congress could impact on whether we use force or
not is with a formal declaration of war. Even in 1789--to quote
Hamilton--ceremonial declarations of war had fallen into disuse, so
obviously that is not what they were talking about alone.
The conclusion that Congress has the power to authorize all uses of
force is buttressed by the inclusion in the war clause of the power to
grant letters of marque and reprisal. An anachronism today, I
acknowledge, letters of marque and reprisal were, though, in the 18th
century, their version of limited war. Even back then, for a President
to engage in limited war, he needed the authorization of the U.S.
Congress. The vehicle was issuing letters of marque and reprisal.
I understand that the administration has expressed its strong
opposition to this provision and is threatening to veto it. I have
called the administration and indicated they are being foolish in even
making that threat, with all due respect. It is merely an institutional
instinct that does not surprise me, but I am somewhat surprised by the
volume of the objection.
The Durbin amendment, if enacted, may have one salutary effect: It
could force the President and his advisors to pause before continuing
to make broad assertions of Presidential war power.
If even that result is achieved, the enactment of the Durbin
amendment will be a positive development in restoring the
constitutional imbalance.
Mr. President, I will not take the time now, but I will, at the
appropriate time, reintroduce the Use of Force Act that I have in
previously attempted to have passed, working with a number of
constitutional scholars who have written extensively in this area.
Let me conclude in the 30 seconds I have left to again compliment the
Senator from Illinois. It is time the Congress, with the changed world,
reassert its rightful role in the conduct of the use of force, and, now
that the world has changed, the old saw about the need for this
emergency power--the Congress being less relevant in that regard--
should be put to bed once and for all.
I thank him for his effort and I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I know that the Senator from Illinois
still has 5 and a half minutes. But I ask unanimous consent that it be
in order for me to put down the first of the series of the second
managers' package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3466

(Purpose: To require the Air National Guard to provide support for
Coast Guard seasonal search and rescue operations at Francis S.
Gabreski Airport, Hampton, New York)

Mr. STEVENS. So I send to the desk an amendment I offer on behalf of
the Senator from New York, Mr. D'Amato.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8014. (a) The Air National Guard shall, during the
period beginning on April 15, 1999, and ending on October 15,
1999, provide support at the Francis S. Gabreski Airport,
Hampton, New York, for seasonal search and rescue mission
requirements of the Coast Guard in the vicinity of Hampton,
New York.
(b) The support provided under subsection (a) shall include
access to and use of appropriate facilities at Francis S.
Gabreski Airport, including runways, hangars, the operations
center, and aircraft berthing and maintenance spaces.
(c)(1) The adjutant general of the National Guard of the
State of New York and the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall
enter into a memorandum of understanding regarding the
support to be provided under subsection (a).
(2) Not later than December 1, 1998, the adjutant general
and the Commandant shall jointly submit to the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a copy of the
memorandum of understanding entered into under paragraph (1).

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this
amendment be set aside to be considered along with the other managers'
package at the conclusion of the vote. And I ask unanimous consent that
that shall be at 8 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3392, As Modified

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is a technical correction to
amendment No. 3392. It was earlier adopted. Its citation needs to be
corrected. I ask unanimous consent that it be corrected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3392), as modified, is as follows:

On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. __ For an additional amount for ``Overseas Contingency
Operations Transfer Fund,'' $1,858,600,000: Provided, That
the Secretary of Defense may transfer these funds only to
military personnel accounts, operation and maintenance
accounts, procurement accounts, the defense health program
appropriations and working capital funds: Provided further,
That the funds transferred shall be merged with and shall be
available for the same purposes and for the same time period,
as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further,
That the transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in
addition to any other transfer authority available to the
Department of Defense: Provided further, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, at this time the Senator from Illinois is
left. I say to my good friend, be my guest for the extra 1\1/2\
minutes.

Amendment No. 3465

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his
generosity. I will conclude at 8 o'clock, as we promised, and ask for a
vote on this. Allow me to try to describe what is at stake, because for
everybody in the gallery and those listening to the debate, this could
hit home some day. It is a question about when or if the United States
should ever go to war, who will make the decision. If you were called
on, or one of your children was, who will decide whether or not that
person will stand in harm's way, risk their lives for their country?
I have the deepest respect and admiration for those who serve in the
armed services. They have given up their lives to protect this Nation
and we owe them a great debt of gratitude. What we are talking about is
how this decision is made. The men who wrote this Constitution
understood very clearly that if they were going to have a voice in the
process, they would have to rely on the Senators and Members of
Congress to make that decision on the declaration of war.
This amendment is very brief. By Senate standards, it is amazingly
brief--just a few lines. But it states very clearly what I think is an
important constitutional concept. First, the President of the United
States as Commander in Chief of all of our Armed Forces still retains
all of his power and authority to defend the United States and its
citizens. He does not have to come to Congress on bended knee and beg
for that authority. It is his; he is Commander in Chief. But when he
crosses that line and no longer is defending us, but rather is pushing
forward in an offensive capacity, saying that we are now going to
invade a nation, we are now going to try to secure a certain objective
or target, beyond a defensive objective, then the Constitution is
clear: That is not his decision to make; it is our decision to make.
Better yet, it is your decision to make--to speak to your elected
Representatives in the House and Senate and to express your heartfelt
feelings.
I can recall the debate over the Persian Gulf war. There was quite a
division within the military, and even

[[Page S9392]]

within Congress. But I don't think there was a finer moment in the 16
years I have served on Capitol Hill than that period of time when each
Member of the U.S. Senate and the House came to the floor and took all
the time necessary to speak their hearts about whether or not we should
put our children in harm's way to stop this aggression by Saddam
Hussein.
I can speak for myself--and I am sure for many colleagues,
Republicans and Democrats alike--there were sleepless nights when you
knew that a vote to go forward and commit our troops in an offensive
capacity was going to lead to the loss of life. It was a painful
decision, but it is one that I accepted, and everybody as a Member of
the House and Senate accepted as well.
I say to my colleagues in the U.S. Senate, who I hope are following
this debate, that this is about whether or not the oath of office that
we took is meaningful. When we swore to uphold the Constitution of the
United States, I don't believe they asked us to turn to Article I,
section 8 and make an amendment to take it out. No, it was included. It
was part of that responsibility--an awesome responsibility.
My friend, the Senator from Alaska, has raised a procedural point. He
says that this is beyond the scope of an appropriation or a spending
bill. I disagree with his conclusion on that. I have seen what is
considered authorizing language and much more expansive language easily
adopted on the floor of the Senate and in the House time and time
again. So I hope that those who vote on the amendment will vote on it
on all fours, straightforward, up or down; do you agree or disagree? Do
you agree with our Constitution, which says this is our responsibility
in Congress to declare war? Or are you prepared to accept the drift
that has gone on for half a century now, which says we will continue to
give more and more power to the President to make this decision?
If you should decide this is the President's province and we are
going to cede all of our constitutional authority, mark my words, you
should think twice before you come to the floor of the Senate--or our
colleagues in the House--and question when the President uses this
authority, because if you are not prepared to say that we accept our
responsibility under the Constitution, that we will stand up and decide
and vote when it comes to putting our troops in harm's way, then I
think you may have forsworn any opportunity to come to this floor and
second-guess the President--a President who uses the power that we have
handed to him.
As I have said in previous moments in this debate, there is no sadder
moment than going home to your State or district and facing a casket,
draped with a flag, of a fallen soldier, sailor, airman or marine and
then facing that family. I believe that it is our constitutional
responsibility to be part of the decisionmaking that leads to military
action. It will not be an easy task. It will be a tough burden, but it
is exactly why we have stood for office and why we have asked to
represent our States.
I hope my colleagues in the U.S. Senate will support this amendment.
I believe this is straightforward and honest in its approach. I believe
that as you consider the possibilities just in the weeks ahead--perhaps
even while we are gone over the August recess--that there may be an
effort in the Bosnian region, in Kosovo or some other place, to assert
and take offensive military action. Those who have voted against this
amendment tonight will not be able to say the President should have
called on us first, because that is what this amendment says. This
amendment says anywhere in the world where the President wants to take
offensive military action--not to defend the property and the persons
of America, but offensive military action--he is bound by the
Constitution of the United States.
Mr. President, I believe my time has expired. I yield the remainder
of my time.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the amendment be
placed before both parties on the appropriate table.
I move to table the amendment of the Senator from Illinois and ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Alaska to lay on the table the amendment of the
Senator from Illinois. On this question, the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is absent because of illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``aye''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 15, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 251 Leg.]

YEAS--84

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--15

Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Johnson
Kennedy
Moseley-Braun
Sarbanes
Specter
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--1

Helms

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3465) was agreed
to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Change of Vote

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to change a
vote. On the last vote, I voted ``nay.'' I meant to vote ``yea.'' The
vote will not affect the outcome. I did not realize it was a tabling
motion. I ask unanimous consent to change my vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)

Amendment No. 3398, Withdrawn

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may
withdraw the Kyl amendment No. 3398, with the consent of the sponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3398) was withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 3466 through 3475, en bloc

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to announce that we have left
outstanding one amendment of Senator Graham which I understand may be
disposed of by separate--two amendments of Senator Harkin, and we have
two outstanding amendments on this side which I hope will be cleared
soon.
We have a package here ready to present. We have before the Senate--
the pending amendment I believe is Senator D'Amato's amendment on
search and rescue. I add to that amendment the following amendments:
the Bingaman amendment on donation of surplus dental equipment; the
Bingaman amendment on furnishing of dental care to dependents; the Dodd
amendment on retired pay backlog; the Harkin amendment on backlog of
medals; the Harkin amendment on smoking cessation; the Frist amendment
on Marine Corps lightweight maintenance enclosures; the Dorgan
amendment on environmental cleanup; the DeWine amendment on drug
interdiction; the Wellstone amendment on family violence.
I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider the managers'
amendment en bloc and that the amendments be adopted en bloc and the
motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

[[Page S9393]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am curious what the Dorgan amendment
is--environmental. Would you briefly describe that?
Mr. STEVENS. It is $1.4 million for a site in North Dakota as a
permissive amendment for cleanup. It has been cleared on both sides, I
might say to the Senator.
Mr. CHAFEE. Not totally.
Mr. STEVENS. What?
Mr. CHAFEE. Not totally cleared on both sides.
Mr. STEVENS. It is a permissive amendment. It does not mandate. It
authorizes. It provides the money if they want to do it. We thought on
that basis it is up to the administration to do it or not do it.
I inquire of the Senator from Florida----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments by
number.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], on behalf of others, proposes
en bloc amendments 3466 through 3475.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection----
Mr. STEVENS. May we have order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have order.
If there is no objection, the amendments are considered and agreed to
en bloc.
Mr. STEVENS. And the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 3466 through 3475) were agreed to, as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 3466

(Purpose: To require the Air National Guard to provide support for
Coast Guard seasonal search and rescue operations at Francis S.
Gabreski Airport, Hampton, New York)

AMENDMENT NO. 3467

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to carry out a program to
donate surplus dental equipment of the Department of Defense to Indian
Health Service facilities and Federally-qualified health centers that
serve rural and medically underserved populations)

On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. (a) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may carry
out a program to distribute surplus dental equipment of the
Department of Defense, at no cost to DoD Indian Health
Service facilities and to Federally-qualified health centers
(within the meaning of section 1905(l)(2)(B) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(l)(2)(B))).
(b) Not later than March 15, 1999, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report on the program, including
the actions taken under the program.

AMENDMENT NO. 3468

(Purpose: To require a report on uniformed services dental care
policies, practices, and experience pertaining to the furnishing of
dental services to dependents of members of the uniformed services on
active duty)

On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. (a) Not later than March 15, 1999, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations
and on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committees on
Appropriations and on National Security of the House of
Representatives a report on the policies, practices, and
experience of the uniformed services pertaining to the
furnishing of dental care to dependents of members of the
uniformed services on active duty who are 18 years of age and
younger.
(b) The report shall include (1) the rates of usage of
various types of dental services under the health care system
of the uniformed services by the dependents, set forth in
categories defined by the age and the gender of the
dependents and by the rank of the members of the uniformed
services who are the sponsors for those dependents, (2) an
assessment of the feasibility of providing the dependents
with dental benefits (including initial dental visits for
children) that conform with the guidelines of the American
Academy of Pediatric Dentistry regarding infant oral health
care, and (3) an evaluation of the feasibility and potential
effects of offering general anesthesia as a dental health
care benefit available under TRICARE to the dependents.

AMENDMENT NO. 3469

(Purpose: To make appropriations available for actions necessary to
eliminate the backlog of unpaid retired pay relating to Army service
and to report to Congress)

On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. (a) Of the total amount appropriated for the
Army, the Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard under
title I, $1,700,000 may be available for taking the actions
required under this section to eliminate the backlog of
unpaid retired pay and to submit a report.
(b) The Secretary of the Army may take such actions as are
necessary to eliminate, by December 31, 1998, the backlog of
unpaid retired pay for members and former members of the Army
(including members and former members of the Army Reserve and
the Army National Guard).
(c) Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to
Congress a report on the backlog of unpaid retired pay. The
report shall include the following:
(1) The actions taken under subsection (b).
(2) The extent of the remaining backlog.
(3) A discussion of any additional actions that are
necessary to ensure that retired pay is paid in a timely
manner.

AMENDMENT NO. 3470

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to take action to ensure
the elimination of the backlog of incomplete actions on requests for
replacement medals and replacement of other decorations)

On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. (a) The Secretary of Defense may take such
actions as are necessary to ensure the elimination of the
backlog of incomplete actions on requests of former members
of the Armed Forces for replacement medals and replacements
for other decorations that such personnel have earned in the
military service of the United States.
(b)(1) The actions taken under subsection (a) may include,
except as provided in paragraph (2), allocations of
additional resources to improve relevant staffing levels at
the Army Reserve Personnel Command, the Bureau of Naval
Personnel, and the Air Force Personnel Center, allocations of
Department of Defense resources to the National Archives and
Records Administration, and any additional allocations of
resources that the Secretary considers necessary to carry out
subsection (a).
(2) An allocation of resources may be made under paragraph
(1) only if and to the extent that the allocation does not
detract from the performance of other personnel service and
personnel support activities within the Department of
Defense.

amendment no. 3471

(Purpose: To provide tobacco cessation therapy)

On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. Beginning no later than 60 days after enactment,
effective tobacco cessation products and counseling may be
provided for members of the Armed Forces (including retired
members), former members of the Armed Forces entitled to
retired or retainer pay, and dependents of such members and
former members, who are identified as likely to benefit from
such assistance in a manner that does not impose costs upon
the individual.

amendment no. 3472

(Purpose: To make available funds for procurement of light-weight
maintenance enclosures (LME) for the Army and the Marine Corps)

On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. (a) Of the amounts appropriated by title II of
this Act under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps'', $5,000,000 may be available for procurement
of lightweight maintenance enclosures (LME).
(b) Of the amounts appropriated by title III of this Act
under the heading ``Other Procurement, Army'', $2,000,000 may
be available for procurement of light-weight maintenance
enclosures (LME).

lightweight maintenance enclosures

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I appreciate having the opportunity to
offer this amendment which I hope will be accepted by both floor
managers on this important Defense bill.
Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering today would provide
$5,000,000 for the Marine Corps within the Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps account, and $2,000,000 within the Other Procurement, Army
ac-

[[Page S9394]]

count for the Army to allow both Service branches to obtain lightweight
maintenance enclosures or LMEs for deployment in forward maintenance
operations in the field. More specifically, these funds will provide
our soldiers and Marines the capability to forward-deploy lightweight,
low cost shelter systems that are easy to operate, provide protection
for field maintenance operations in difficult environments, and at a
cost that is one-quarter the cost of the older model units previously
utilized by the Army and Marine Corps.
The House of Representatives recognized the requirement for these
Lightweight Maintenance Enclosures by authorizing the identical level
of funding that I am recommending in my amendment, in the House version
of the National Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 1999 (H.R.
3616). In the House Committee report (H. Rept. 105-532), the House
National Security Committee stated that the Army identified its
requirement for the LMEs after the President's budget request was
submitted to the Congress, and therefore authorized funding for LMEs in
the House authorization bill. The House also approved a $5,000,000
authorization for the Marine Corps to meet their requirements for LMEs
as well.
Furthermore, Mr. President, the Chief of Staff of the Army, General
Dennis Reimer, identified ``Soldier Life Support'' equipment, including
LMEs, as being among the Army's top 10 highest unfunded priorities.
Unfortunately, despite the authorization in place in the House-passed
Defense authorization bill, no appropriations have been provided in
either the House or Senate versions of the Defense appropriations
bills. Therefore, it is my hope that the distinguished Senator from
Alaska, Senator Stevens, and his outstanding Ranking Member, Senator
Inouye, would be willing to accept this small amendment and take it to
conference with the House. Let me quickly say that I would be pleased
to work with the two managers of the bill to find appropriate offsets
to accommodate this small but important amendment as we head toward
conference following final disposition of this bill.
Finally, we are working vigorously with our counterparts in the
House, including Representative Van Hilleary of Tennessee, and Members
of the Virginia delegation, including Representative Rick Boucher, to
hold the LME authorization levels in conference with the Senate and to,
hopefully, pave the way for acceptance of this pending amendment in
conference on the Defense appropriations bill.
Therefore, Mr. President, I would hope that the Senate would approve
this amendment today. The funding that I am seeking meets a real
soldier life support requirement for both the Army and the Marines. It
will allow our soldiers and Marines to have a cost-effective,
lightweight, forward-deployed maintenance shelter system that is easy
to operate, durable and significantly less expensive than the current,
older, less effective shelters and tents that we currently use in the
field. For these reasons, I would ask that the Senate approve this
modest amendment today.

amendment no. 3473

(Purpose: To require the abatement of hazardous substances at Finley
Air Force Station, Finley, North Dakota)

On page 10, line 15, before the period, insert the
following: ``: Provided further, that out of the funds
available under this heading, $300,000 may be available for
the abatement of hazardous substances in housing at the
Finely Air Force Station, Finely, North Dakota''.

amendment no. 3474

(Purpose: To provide additional resources for enhanced drug
interdiction efforts in the Caribbean and South America)

On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104: Of the funds available for Drug Interdiction, up
to $8,500,000 may be made available to support restoration of
enhanced counter-narcotics operations around the island of
Hispaniola, for operation and maintenance for establishment
of ground-based radar coverage at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base,
Cuba, for procurement of 2 Schweizer observation/spray
aircraft, and for upgrades for 3 UH-IH helicopter for
Colombia.

AMENDMENT NO. 3475

(Purpose: To provide for enhanced protections of the confidentiality of
records of family advocacy services and other professional support
services relating to incidents of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and
intrafamily abuse)

On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall study the
policies, procedures, and practices of the military
departments for protecting the confidentiality of
communications between--
(1) a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces who--
(A) is a victim of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or
intrafamily abuse; or
(B) has engaged in such misconduct; and
(2) a therapist, counselor, advocate, or other professional
from whom the victim seeks professional services in
connection with effects of such misconduct.
(b)(1) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe in
regulations the policies and procedures that the Secretary
considers necessary to provide the maximum possible
protections for the confidentiality of communications
described in subsection (a) relating to misconduct described
in that subsection.
(2) The regulations shall provide the following:
(A) Complete confidentiality of the records of the
communications of dependents of members of the Armed Forces.
(B) Characterization of the records under family advocacy
programs of the Department of Defense as primary medical
records for purposes of the protections from disclosure that
are associated with primary medical records.
(C) Facilitated transfer of records under family advocacy
programs in conjunction with changes of duty stations of
persons to whom the records relate in order to provide for
continuity in the furnishing of professional services.
(D) Adoption of standards of confidentiality and ethical
standards that are consistent with standards issued by
relevant professional associations.
(3) In prescribing the regulations, the Secretary shall
consider the following:
(A) Any risk that the goals of advocacy and counseling
programs for helping victims recover from adverse effects of
misconduct will not be attained if there is no assurance that
the records of the communications (including records of
counseling sessions) will be kept confidential.
(B) The extent, if any, to which a victim's safety and
privacy should be factors in determinations regarding--
(i) disclosure of the victim's identity to the public or
the chain of command of a member of the Armed Forces alleged
to have engaged in the misconduct toward the victim; or
(ii) any other action that facilitates such a disclosure
without the consent of the victim.
(C) The eligibility for care and treatment in medical
facilities of the uniformed services for any person having a
uniformed services identification card (including a card
indicating the status of a person as a dependent of a member
of the uniformed services) that is valid for that person.
(D) The appropriateness of requiring that so-called Privacy
Act statements be presented as a condition for proceeding
with the furnishing of treatment or other services by
professionals referred to in subsection (a).
(E) The appropriateness of adopting the same standards of
confidentiality and ethical standards that have been issued
by such professional associations as the American Psychiatric
Association and the National Association of Social Workers.
(4) The regulations may not prohibit the disclosure of
information to a Federal or State agency for a law
enforcement or other governmental purpose.
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the
Attorney General in carrying out this section.
(d) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report on the actions taken under this section.
The report shall include a discussion of the results of the
study under subsection (a) and the comprehensive discussion
of the regulations prescribed under subsection (b).

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from
Florida, Mr. Graham--is he here?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we please have order in the Chamber.
Mr. STEVENS. Is Mr. Harkin here?
Mr. President, I am in error on the Leahy amendment on JSAT. That is
still on the list. It has not been removed.

Amendment No. 3476

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Robb now has a sense of the
Senate with regard to the Italy incident, which we are prepared to
take. I yield to the Senator to present and explain his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, this amendment has been converted to a sense
of the Senate. It simply recognizes an obligation of the United States
to compensate the victims of the Marine Corps jet incident involving a
jet aircraft flying out of Aviano. At this point, the Ambassador of the
United States to Italy has already agreed that, under the Status of
Forces Agreement, that the United States

[[Page S9395]]

would pick up the 25 percent normally assigned to the host nation. We
were going to try to present an arrangement where this could be worked
out more expeditiously. At this point it is simply a sense of the
Senate. Instead, it ought to be resolved as quickly and fairly as
possible.
Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb] proposes an amendment
numbered 3476.

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

Findings:
On the third of February a United States Marine Corps jet
aircraft, flying a low-level training mission out of Aviano,
Italy, flew below its prescribed altitude and severed the
cables supporting a gondola at the Italian ski resort near
Cavalese, resulting in the death of twenty civilians;
the crew of the aircraft, facing criminal charges, is
entitled to a speedy trial and is being provided that and all
the other protections and advantages of the U.S. system of
justice;
the United States, to maintain its credibility and honor
amongst its allies and all nations of the world, should make
prompt reparations for an accident clearly caused by a United
States military aircraft;
a high-level delegation, including the U.S. Ambassador to
Italy, recently visited Cavalese and, as a result, 20 million
dollars was promised to the people in Cavalese for their
property damage and business losses;
without our prompt action, these families continue to
suffer financial agonies, our credibility in the European
community continues to suffer, and our own citizens remain
puzzled and angered by our lack of accountability;
under the current arrangement we have with Italy in the
context of our Status of Force Agreement (SOFA), civil claims
arising from the accident at Cavalese must be brought against
the Government of Italy, in accordance with the laws and
regulations of ltaly, as if the armed forces of Italy had
been responsible for the accident;
under Italian law, every claimant for property damage,
personal injury or wrongful death must file initially an
administrative claim for damages with the Ministry of Defense
in Rome which is expected to take 12-18 months, and, if the
Ministry's offer in settlement is not acceptable, which it is
not likely to be, the claimant must thereafter resort to the
Italian court system, where civil cases for wrongful death
are reported to take up to ten years to resolve;
while under the SOFA process, the United States--as the
``sending state''--will be responsible for 75 percent of any
damages awarded, and the Government of Italy--as the
``receiving state''--will be responsible for 25 percent, the
United States has agreed to pay all damages awarded in this
case;
It is the Sense of the Congress that the United States
should resolve the claims of the victims of the February 8,
1998 U.S. Marine Corps aircraft incident in Cavalese, Italy
as quickly and fairly as possible.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have agreed to take this amendment. It
is now a sense-of-the-Senate amendment and requires a report concerning
the Italy incident.
I ask for its immediate consideration.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3476) was agreed to.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3477

Mr. STEVENS. Senator Leahy's amendment on JSAT, has he sent the
amendment to the desk?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment
numbered 3477.

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

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

SEC. . TRAINING AND OTHER PROGRAMS.

(a) Prohibition.--None of the funds made available by this
Act may be used to support any training program involving a
unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the
Secretary of Defense has received credible information from
the Department of State that a member of such unit has
committed a gross violation of human rights, unless all
necessary corrective steps have been taken.
(b) Monitoring.--Not more than 90 days after enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, shall establish procedures to ensure that
prior to a decision to conduct any training program referred
to in paragraph (a), full consideration is given to all
information available to the Department of State relating to
human rights violations by foreign security forces.
(c) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense, after consultation
with the Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition in
paragraph (a) if he determines that such waiver is required
by extraordinary circumstances.
(d) Report.--Not more than 15 days after the exercise of
any waiver under paragraph (c), the Secretary of Defense
shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees
describing the extraordinary circumstances, the purpose and
duration of the training program, the United States forces
and the foreign security forces involved in the training
program, and the information relating to human rights
violations that necessitates the waiver.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator's indulgence. We have
to finally clear this amendment. There is some confusion, I might say
to my friend from Vermont, because our indication was that there was a
position from the Department which opposed the amendment. The Senator's
information is the Department supports the amendment. We intend to take
it to conference and confer with the Department and then confer with
the Senator with regard to the final disposition of it.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Alaska is correct. This is a Xerox copy,
but I do have the actual signoff from DOD on the amendment, which I
will give to the distinguished chairman.
Mr. President, I note this was primarily a clarification so the
Department of Defense and Department of State could be saying the same
thing in this area. I understand the Senator from Alaska and the
Senator from Hawaii may want to discuss it further between now and
conference. I will be a conferee on that, and will be happy to do so.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3477) was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the chairman will yield 2 minutes to the
Senator from New Mexico?
Mr. STEVENS. Reluctantly, Mr. President.
Mr. DOMENICI. When you hear my remarks, you will be pleased that you
did.
Mr. President, let me suggest the Appropriations Committee has come
in right on the number, in terms of the budget. They have no directed
spending or anything else that would seek to gimmick this budget. Some
were asking, ``Will you turn the other way and let us have some
directed spending that breaks the caps?'' I haven't been able to do
that for anyone, and I am very grateful we do not have to do it on this
bill. The chairman of this committee came in, and everywhere he moved,
he said, ``Let's meet the budget right on the money.'' And he did. I
commend him for that.
Mr. President, I strongly support S. 2132, the Defense Appropriations
bill for FY 1999. The pending bill provides $250.5 billion in total
budget authority and $168.2 billion in new outlays for the Department
of Defense and related activities. When outlays from prior years and
other adjustments are taken into account, outlays total $245.2 billion.
There are some major elements to this bill that are important for the
Senate to review.
The bill is consistent with the Bipartisan Balanced Budget Agreement.
This year the defense budget is once again confronted with a serious
mismatch between the DoD/OMB and the CBO estimates of the outlays
needed to execute the programs in the budget request. CBO's estimate
was $3.7 billion higher than OMB and DoD's estimate.

[[Page S9396]]

Because the President's proposed defense spending was right up to the
discretionary spending caps adopted in the Bipartisan Budget Agreement,
compensating for CBO scoring would require large reductions in
manpower, procurement, or readiness, or all three. Cuts like that are
simply not acceptable.
During the Senate's consideration of the congressional budget
resolution in March, the Senate received an excellent suggestion from
the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We adopted a Stevens
Amendment that called on CBO and OMB to resolve their differences.
Several meetings occurred as a result, and under the auspices of the
Budget Committee, we devised a solution. The solution has three parts:
First, Congress would legislate policies recommended by the
Administration to better manage cash in DoD's Working Capital Funds.
This would lower fiscal year 1999 outlays by $1.3 billion.
Second, Congress would agree to changes proposed by the
Administration in two classified accounts in the Air Force budget that
would lower 1999 outlays by $700 million.
Third, Congress would enact asset sales amounting to $730 million.
The Chairman of the Appropriations Committee has assured me that
taken together these actions help reduce the 1999 outlay shortage to
manageable dimensions and help avoid the negative effect on readiness
or modernization that was feared.
I strongly support this bill, and I urge its adoption. I want to
compliment the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee on his very
skillful handling of this important legislation and for his
statesmanlike approach to some serious and troubling issues in this
year's defense budget.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Senate Budget Committee
table displaying the budget impact of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2132, DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 1999: SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 1999, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority........................... 250,289 27 ........... 202 250,518
Outlays.................................... 244,942 27 ........... 202 245,171
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority........................... 250,290 27 ........... 202 250,519
Outlays.................................... 244,942 27 ........... 202 245,171
President's request:
Budget authority........................... 250,763 27 ........... 202 250,992
Outlays.................................... 242,863 27 ........... 202 243,092
House-passed bill:
Budget authority........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Outlays.................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Senate-reported bill compared to:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority....................... -1 ........... ........... ........... -1
Outlays................................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
President's request:
Budget authority....................... -474 ........... ........... ........... -474
Outlays................................ 2,079 ........... ........... ........... 2,079
House-passed bill:
Budget authority....................... 250,289 27 ........... 202 250,518
Outlays................................ 244,942 27 ........... 202 245,171
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Budget Committee chairman is too
kind. We do appreciate his constant watch over the budget and our
spending of the money from the Treasury.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3409

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there still is pending the Hutchison
amendment, the sense of the Senate on Bosnia, am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. May I make a parliamentary inquiry? It is my
understanding that is the only other amendment that is pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. We still have four more beyond that to deal with. So I
suggest the absence of a quorum until we find out what is going to
happen with these three amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have a number of problems with the
amendment offered by the Senator from Texas that contains a series of
findings, expresses the sense of Congress, and requires the President
to submit a report relating to the readiness of the United States Armed
Forces to execute the National Security Strategy.
I realize that the managers of the Defense Appropriations bill are up
against a tight deadline to finish their bill and I want to cooperate
with them. But, I do want to note for the record a few points.
I believe a number of statements in the amendment are overdrawn and I
believe that the sense of Congress section of the amendment,
particularly subparagraph (B), improperly singles out the Bosnia
operation and badly overstates its impact on the units participating in
and supporting that operation.
Nevertheless, I believe that it would be useful to the Congress to
receive a report from the President on the military readiness of the
Armed Forces of the United States. Accordingly and despite the problems
I have noted, I will not object to this amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator has indicated he is prepared to not object
to this amendment. There being no objection to the sense-of-the-Senate
amendment on Bosnia of the Senator from Texas, I ask it be laid before
the Senate for action. Is it the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the pending question.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the adoption of the sense-of-the-Senate
amendment of the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3409) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Campbell be included as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3431 previously
been adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stewart
Holmes, a fellow on Senator Cochran's staff, be granted the privilege
of the floor during consideration of this defense appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Hutchison of Texas be added as a cosponsor to the Gramm amendment No.
3463 on military voting rights.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S9397]]

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3394

(Purpose: To add $8,200,000 for procurement of M888, 60-millimeter,
high-explosive ammunition for the Marine Corps, and to offset the
increase by reducing the amount for Air force war reserve materials (PE
13950) by $8,200,000)

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3394 offered by
Senator Santorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Santorum,
proposes an amendment numbered 3394.

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

On page 26, line 8, increase the amount by $8,200,000.
On page 10, line 6, reduce the first amount by $8,200,000.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3394) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I seek recognition for the purpose of
engaging the manager of the bill in a colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Thank you Mr. President. I rise to update the
distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee on
the status of the CH-47 engine upgrade program, which the committee
reduced by $27.3 million in its reported bill. The basis for the
reduction was program delays.
The committee's action has called Army leadership attention to the
delays in getting the FY 1997 and 1998 funds on contract. This delay
was due in part to disruptions from relocating the contracting office
from St. Louis to Huntsville and in part to unsuccessful, protracted
efforts to use commercial pricing practices on the contract.
I understand that the strong support from the CINC's combined with
the Committee's recommendations made completion of these contracts a
high priority. I am pleased to report that the FY97 kit production
contract was signed July 1 and that the FY97 engine conversion contract
and the FY 1998 kit production contract was signed as of July 29.
Further, the full rate production contracts are scheduled to be signed
early in fiscal year 1999.
Fortunately, production of the engine conversion kits has been
underway on a letter contract since December 1997 with actual engine
upgrades now underway and on schedule at the Greer, South Carolina
plant to meet the initial delivery of upgraded engines in October 1998.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank my good friend from South Carolina for the
update on action since the committee markup. The committee
recommendations were not meant to be pejorative but reflective of what
was likely to be a fact of life delay in the program.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the chairman for that assurance. I hasten to
add my support for the upgrade program, which is done in part at two
separate facilities in Greer, South Carolina.
While I voted for the bill in subcommittee and full committee, I
strongly urge the chairman to give careful consideration to restoring
full program funding in conference based on this new information. The
upgrade program is just phasing out of its low rate initial production
phase with the FY 1999 funds. Maintaining the production schedule is
critical to controlling costs and achieving efficiencies. The FY 1999
funding in question starts full rate production for which all the
necessary Army approvals have been given.
Mr. STEVENS. I accept the Senator's point on timing of the committee
mark. I point out that the House has reduced the program by $12.7
million for other reasons. I can assure the Senator that we will do our
best in conference if the contracts are signed in accordance with the
schedule given to you.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my good friend, the distinguished Senator from
Alaska. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

first program

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as the Senate continues consideration of
the Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 Defense appropriations bill, I would like to
take a moment to express my concerns regarding the funding and
administration of the Air Force's Financial Information Resources
System (FIRST) program. This is a controversial program for a number of
reasons. First, legitimate questions have been raised about the
necessity of this program. It is my understanding that even though all
the military departments and agencies were to move toward a single
system for program, budgeting and accounting (PBAS), the Air Force has
not moved in that direction.
The Air Force intends for the FIRST program to perform the functions
intended for PBAS, which would make the program duplicative. This issue
was raised by the house National Security Committee, which zeroed out
funding for the FIRST program in its version of the Fiscal Year 1999
Defense Authorization Bill.
The House National Security Committee also noted in its Committee
report that the Air Force has chosen to utilize the Global Combat
Supply System-Air Force (GCSS-AF) contract for the program, rather than
competitively bid for the program. This decision raises both fiscal and
policy concerns because this would be work outside the scope of the
GCSS-AF contract. The GCSS-AF contract was advertised and awarded for
``base-level systems modernization.'' In contrast, the FIRST program
involves a budget system modernization plan that would impact all Air
Force functional levels: base level, wholesale level, major air
command, and headquarters. Clearly, the FIRST program would exceed the
scope of the GCSS-AF contract.
I should also point out that the Air Force's decision to utilize
GCSS-AF for the FIRST program was made after the Air Force announced an
open competition, and after eighteen companies acted in good faith and
submitted qualification applications for evaluation and screening. This
course reversal, and the rational behind it has not been made clear to
me or others that are concerned about this decision.
Mr. President, I also believe the Air Force's decision merits close
review because it's not clear to me that it would be wise for the Air
Force to place a disproportionate amount of its systems modernization
work all in one contract.
Finally, the entire process raises policy concerns with respect to
organizational planning within the Air Force. Currently, the
development and execution of corporate information management systems
for combat support is, in my view, not conducted in a coordinated and
integrated fashion. In other words, the way the FIRST program is being
administered is a symptom of a much larger organizational issue that
deserves review by Congress and the Air Force.
In short, given all the issues that I have briefly described, I
believe we should withhold going forward with the FIRST program until
we can sort these and any other related issues that others may have. In
fact, I had intended to offer an amendment that would allow for the
Defense Department to use these funds for drug interdiction programs,
but I have worked with the chairman and the ranking member to find
other ways to help our drug interdiction strategy.
Mr. President, we cannot understate the importance of information
technology programs to the future of our armed services. Thousands of
people at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and in the surrounding Miami
Valley area play a leading role in the development

[[Page S9398]]

of these programs. However, these programs have to be pursued with an
eye toward fiscal soundness and effective coordination with similar
systems defense-wide. I see the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Committee on the floor and I hope that he will take the
issues and concerns I have raised into consideration as he proceeds to
conference with the House of Representatives.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Ohio for raising
these issues with respect to the FIRST program. I have listened closely
to his remarks, and he certainly has offered food for thought. I will
take his comments into consideration as we move to conference, and look
forward to working with him and others interested in this issue to find
an appropriate solution.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Committee for his remarks, and I look forward to working
with him as well.

pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) cargo inspection systems (cis)
operational field demonstration

Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I would like to engage the
distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee in a
colloquy regarding the Senate's action on the Pulsed Fast Neutron
Analysis (PFNA) program. On behalf of the many Senators on both sides
of the aisle who support this initiative, I wish to thank you for
agreeing to include an amendment to the FY 1999 DoD Appropriations bill
that directs the Department of Defense (DoD) to immediately obligate
all of the funds which Congress has mandated be used for a fair, and
rigorous operational field demonstration of the PFNA system at a major
U.S. border crossing or at a major U.S. port of entry.
Mr. STEVENS. The committee has previously supported the PFNA project
by adding funds to permit this new technology to be developed and
tested. Like you, I am dismayed that the Department has failed to make
available to PFNA the $3 million appropriated by Congress in FY 1998
and so far has demonstrated an unwillingness to carry out the PFNA test
program according to congressional intent. It is the clear expectation
of this Senator, and the Committee as a whole, that the Department will
place no further obstacles in the path of a meaningful PFNA field test
program.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank the Senator from Alaska. Furthermore, I
believe that the Defense Department should take whatever steps are
necessary to transfer full administrative and operational
responsibility for the PFNA program to the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP). It is my understanding that General Barry
McCaffrey, Director of ONDCP, is willing to serve as the Executive
Agent for the program next year and then assume full management control
as long as the funds already appropriated by Congress are used to
complete the activities planned under the FY 98 program. I expect that
the Secretary of Defense and the Director of ONDCP will work together
to ensure this transfer of authority and funding is carried out as
expeditiously as possible.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank my colleague. I agree with his understanding of
the situation and the Committee expects DoD to proceed with obligation
of the fiscal year 1998 funds and with the transfer of future program
responsibility to ONDCP.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. In the light of the recent terrorist attacks on U.S.
soil, our Nation's growing problem with drug smuggling and even the
proliferation for weapons of mass destruction, it would be a tragedy if
we did not take full advantage of the best technologies available to
meet these threats. PFNA has enjoyed extraordinary success in
laboratory tests, consistently detecting the presence of contraband in
sealed containers well over 90 percent of the time and with false alarm
rate near zero. No other technology, including X-ray, can come close to
this level of detection.
Mr. STEVENS. I am aware of these results and believe that the U.S.
Customs Service is one government agency which should seriously
consider deploying PFNA should the field test program yield positive
results. The committee hopes that Customs Service will work closely
with ONDCP to provide whatever assistance is necessary to ensure a
complete and honest evaluation of the technology.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. This would include space at a port of entry or border
crossing where a test might be conducted. Once this is done, I hope
that ONDCP and the Customs Service will provide the committee with a
recommendation on the strategy to guide the possible future
acquisition, deployment, and support of neutron interrogation systems,
including PFNA, at land border crossings and ports of entry around the
nation. I believe a useful assessment would provide: (1) a range of
deployment options for the PFNA system; (2) a cost comparison between
PFNA deployment options; and (3) an evaluation of how the employment of
new and existing contraband detection technologies might be optimized
to meet changing threats to U.S. security.
I will consult with my colleague from Alaska and with the chairman of
the Senate Treasury, Postal Appropriations Subcommittee, on what
resources might be available through that subcommittee to support a
continuation of the PFNA test program and the possible procurement of
multiple systems in future years.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank my colleague from North Carolina for his
thorough and careful review of this matter.

shipbreaking provision

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman and
ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a
colloquy.
The Department of Defense appropriations bill provides funds for a
Navy ship disposal pilot program. I would like to clarify the Senate's
intent in creating this pilot program.
I support the Navy's goal of disposing of these ships efficiently.
However, by considering only short-term costs, the Navy has ignored the
long term costs of worker death and injury and environmental
degradation.
For example, during the scrapping of the Coral Sea in Baltimore,
there were many worker injuries and fires. We don't yet know the
environmental damage caused by the improper disposal of asbestos. The
ship is still in the Baltimore harbor, and it will now cost millions of
dollars for the Navy to dispose of the ship properly. American
taxpayers would have saved a lot if we had disposed of the ship
correctly the first time.
To prevent these problems, does the distinguished ranking member
agree that it is the Senate's intent to encourage the Secretary of the
Navy to give significant weight to the technical qualifications and
past performance of the contractor in complying with federal, state and
local laws and regulations for environmental and worker protection?
In addition, do you agree that in making a best value determination
in granting contracts, the Secretary should give a greater weight to
technical and performance-related factors than to cost and price-
related factors?
Mr. INOUYE. I agree that the Navy must give more consideration to
ensuring worker and environmental safety to prevent the problems we
have had in the past.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator.
In addition, does the distinguished chairman agree with me that this
pilot program will help the Navy to develop safer, more efficient
methods of disposing of unneeded vessels--and that this pilot program
should not be delayed?
Mr. STEVENS. I agree that this pilot program is in the best interest
of the Navy and is not contingent on any other legislative action.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their
courtesy and assistance in this important matter.

supplemental impact aid program

Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Department
of Defense's Supplemental Impact Aid Program. As chairman of the
Military Personnel subcommittee of the authorization committee, I
included $35 million in the FY99 Defense Authorization bill for this
important program.
As many of my colleagues already know, supplemental Impact Aid
funding is focused specifically on school districts that are heavily
impacted by large numbers of military connected students or the effects
of base realignment and closures. The DoD funds are in addition to
funds appropriated to

[[Page S9399]]

the Department of Education for all federally impacted schools. The $35
million included in the FY99 Defense Authorization bill will be used to
ensure that military impacted schools can maintain the same standards
as other, non-impacted, school districts. Without these funds, these
districts, quite frankly, would be hard pressed to provide adequate
educational opportunities.
Mr. President, I know many of my colleagues believe that education
is, and should remain, a local and state issue. I wholeheartedly agree.
If there is any role for the Federal Government in funding education,
however, impact aid is it. Without a Federal presence, these impacted
districts would be able to provide for a quality education for their
students. Because of the military presence in the districts we are
discussing today, however, educational resources are severely strained.
We owe it to the families of the men and women who proudly serve our
country, and the families who live near an installation, to provide
adequate resources to offset the military presence.
Originally, it was my intention to offer an amendment today that, if
passed, would have set aside $35 million in this appropriation bill for
DoD supplemental impact aid. After consultation with Chairman Stevens,
I will not offer the amendment. Instead, Chairman Stevens has assured
me this matter will be addressed in conference. I would like to ask the
distinguished Chairman, if it is still his intention to do so?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the House passed FY99 Defense
Appropriations bill contains $35 million for impact aid for school
districts impacted by excessive students from nearby defense
installations. I would like to assure my friend, the Senator from
Idaho, that it is my intention to give fair consideration to the House
position regarding funding for impact aid during the conference to see
if we can include these funds in the final conference report without
negatively impacting the important operations and maintenance accounts
of the Department of Defense.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska, the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for his
consideration of this important program, which is important to the good
citizens of Alaska. In addition, this program is equally important to
the people of Mountain Home, Idaho, home of the 366th Composite Wing.

REPORT 105-200

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to direct a question to the
majority manager of the Defense Appropriations bill, the distinguished
Senator from Alaska. I note that the Committee on Appropriations
directs the Department of Defense to make available, from existing
funds, up to $8,000,000 for a community retraining, reinvestment, and
manufacturing initiative to be conducted by an academic consortia with
existing programs in manufacturing and retraining. It is my
understanding that the consortia referred to is the New Hampshire
Network for Science, Technology and Communication, and further, that
the funds should be provided to that organization to create a state
wide higher education network among small independent colleges to
improve and expand research and training opportunities in science,
technology, and communication for undergraduate students and for
community, business, and K-12 schools. Am I correct, is that not the
intent of the committee?
Mr. STEVENS. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is correct.
The committee intends that the funds be provided to the New Hampshire
Network for Science, Technology and Communication to conduct the effort
described.

Advanced Materials Intelligent Processing Center

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a short
colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens.
As I understand it, the committee included $5 million in the
Research, development, Test, and Evaluation Navy account of your Fiscal
Year 1999 Department of Defense Appropriations bill for continued
funding of the Advanced Materials Intelligent Processing Center in
Evanston, Illinois. I want to confirm that the intent of the committee
was to provide this additional $5 million to continue the activities of
the Center in affiliation with the Naval Air Warfare Center in
Lexington Park, Maryland, as well as other industrial and governmental
partners. This continuation funding will allow the Center first to
complete a state-of-the-art resin transfer molding system with all
required equipment functionality, monitoring, and intelligent
supervisory control, and then to transfer it to the Center's industrial
and governmental partners for prove out in a production environment.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the senior Senator from Illinois for her
interest in this matter. I would like to confirm that the intent of our
committee's action was as she stated.
Mr. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his
clarification on this important matter, and for his leadership with
Senator Inouye of the Committee. I would also like to say to my
colleagues that I am confident the work of the Center can help reduce
the cost of our defense systems through the use of faster, cheaper, and
better means of processing composite materials for military hardware.
These improvements will provide substantial dividends to the American
people.

Anti-Corrosion Research At North Dakota State University

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank the
Managers of this bill, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, for the fine
job they have done on this important legislation. It has been my great
pleasure to work with the Managers as a member of the Defense
Subcommittee, and they do a masterful job of balancing many competing
needs and interests in this bill.
Mr. President, I would like to call the Chairman's attention to one
key provision in the committee report. In the Defense-Wide Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation section, the committee has included
report language regarding the importance of anti-corrosion technologies
to the Department of Defense. As the report says ``New anti-corrosion
technologies are needed to prevent corrosion, reduce corrosion-related
costs, and extend the life of aircraft in a manner compatible with
environmental concerns.''
North Dakota State University has a long history of excellence and
nationally-recognized expertise in polymers and coatings, and has
received significant competitively-awarded funding to investigate new
methods of fighting corrosion. Last year DoD awarded a $2 million
competitive grant to NDSU for this purpose. Mr. President, given NDSU's
expertise in this area and DoD's experience working with NDSU, does the
Chairman believe NDSU would be well-qualified to compete for this work?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Dorgan's comments.
The Air Force in particular is confronted with severe coatings problems
in maintenance of its aging aircraft fleet. To protect the country's
investment in these aircraft, it is important that the committee
provide for increased research on anti-corrosive coatings. I agree with
the Senator that NDSU would be a solid candidate for these anti-
corrosion research funds.

electronic combat testing

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee in a colloquy regarding
threat emitters used to support electronic combat training by the Air
Force Special Operations Command as well as testing by the Air Force
and other services. These emitters replicate the surface-to-air missile
threats and jammers which our combat aircraft might encounter if
deployed to execute a real mission--a mission which would take them
into harm's way. It is essential that these systems be available to
train our first to fight, the special operations forces.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to agree and emphasize the
remarks of my colleague. Unfortunately, there has been a debate over
the status of these emitters which are presently at Eglin Air Force
Base. Some believe the Base Closure and Realignment process mandated
the relocation of these emitters. However, the BRAC also insisted that
training requirements must be met. I believe these

[[Page S9400]]

emitters should remain at Eglin to meet the warfighters training
requirements until we can resolve this dispute. I believe this would be
consistent with the BRAC direction.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, my colleague is correct. We cannot let
ambiguity about words hinder the training and readiness of our forces.
These emitters should be supported at Eglin until we can resolve these
issues. I would ask the distinguished chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee if he can assist us by working on this issue
in the appropriations conference if we can find a solution. We will
work with the Department of Defense as well as the defense authorizing
committees to find a solution which can be accommodated in the defense
appropriations conference.
Mr. STEVENS. I agree with my colleague from Florida. I have followed
this difficult issue for some time. I firmly support the need for
adequate training. And I believe that training can best be conducted in
varying environments, including the terrain and surrounds of Eglin Air
Force Base. I assure my colleagues from Florida that I will do my best
to work this issue with my House counterparts during conference.

Project at Ellsworth Air Force Base

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, my colleague from South Dakota, Senator
Daschle, and I would like to engage the distinguished Chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and the distinguished
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Defense, Senator Inouye, in a
colloquy regarding a housing project at Ellsworth Air Force Base.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Inouye and I are pleased to
discuss this matter with our colleagues from South Dakota.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman and the Ranking
Member for their indulgence. As both of you know, the Hunt Building
Corporation (HBC) constructed an 828-unit military family housing
complex, known as the Centennial Housing Project, at Ellsworth Air
Force Base in 1990 and 1991. Unfortunately, within a year of the
completion of construction, serious and often dangerous defects were
found in many of the units. It is my understanding that over half of
the units in the Centennial Housing Project constructed by HBC are
currently uninhabitable.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, Senator Daschle is correct. In fact, the
extensive damage in these units includes: severe racking due to the
unit's design not holding up to wind; unlevel floors, sticking windows
and doors, and cracking due to badly designed and constructed rim
joists; collapse of interior ceilings caused by defective garage eaves,
which allow heavy snow and rain to enter some attics; sewer gas back up
due to improperly vented plumbing; deck and porch supports and stairs
that have separated from the units and become unlevel because caissons
supporting these structures were not placed below the frost line; and
other problems both with the work done and problems resulting from work
required by the contract but never completed by the Corporation.
Despite these serious problems, the Air Force continues to pay rent on
these units.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Inouye and I are aware of these
severe problems.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Air Force
and HBC agreed to enter into an alternative dispute resolution in an
attempt to resolve the construction and liability issues associated
with the defective housing in the Centennial Housing Project at
Ellsworth.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The two parties
have met with a mediator appointed by the Justice Department and have
had several subsequent meetings to continue negotiating an agreement. I
have been told that the next meeting between the Air Force and HBC will
be next week. Although some progress has been made, it is critically
important that the negotiations between the Air Force and HBC result in
a timely, workable resolution that guarantees the expeditious repair of
the housing units and the return of military personnel to the homes.
While it is my understanding that the Department of Justice has been
looking into this matter for some time and is considering litigation
against HBC if no resolution can be found through the mediation
process, I am hopeful that action by the Department of Justice can be
avoided.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I agree with the comments made by Senator
Johnson. I, too, am hopeful that the mediation process will soon yield
an agreement. Necessary repairs to these homes simply cannot be delayed
any longer. I would also like to inform the Chairman and Ranking Member
that we brought this situation to the attention of the Senate Armed
Services Committee earlier this year.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I appreciate this update on the situation
at Ellsworth Air Force Base regarding the Centennial Housing Project.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to thank both the distinguished
Ranking Member, Senator Inouye, and the distinguished Chairman, Senator
Stevens, for your willingness to help Senator Daschle and me monitor
this situation, which is of critical importance to the quality of life
at Ellsworth Air Force Base. We will keep you apprised of progress made
through the negotiating process.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would also like to thank Senator
Stevens and Senator Inouye for their assistance. This matter is
extremely important to me, Senator Johnson and everyone at Ellsworth
Air Force Base.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Daschle. I share the
concern expressed by the two Senators from South Dakota that taxpayers
are not getting their money's worth out of the Centennial Housing
Project. You can be assured that I will assist you in your efforts to
find a timely solution to this matter that will result in the repair of
the housing units and the return of military personnel to the homes.

Encouraging Greater Use of Distance Learning by the Department of
Defense

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the
many distance learning initiatives contained in the Defense
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999. Senators Inouye and Stevens
have done an outstanding job in encouraging the Department of Defense
to take full advantage of the opportunities provided by great advances
in telecommunications technology, particularly with respect to distance
learning.
This bill contains funding for distance learning programs for the
Marine Corps, and a new initiative for the Army National Guard. In
particular, the National Guard initiative would create a distance
learning network to reduce the cost of training soldiers, enhance
readiness and furthering community development. The Subcommittee on
Defense has a demonstrated its support for these and a number of other
initiatives underway.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his comments. The
Subcommittee on Defense indeed supports these initiatives. Would the
Senator from Hawaii agree?
Mr. INOUYE. That is correct. We have attempted to encourage such
initiatives wherever we could, and wherever such initiatives made
sense.
Mr. CLELAND. As the Ranking Member of the Personnel Subcommittee of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, I believe I can report that our
Subcommittee is also very supportive of distance learning initiatives.
We are keenly aware of the advantages of distance learning. As you
know, Mr. President, many of our military personnel are expected to
available for deployment at a moments notice. Others are deployed
around the world where they do not have ready access to educational
opportunities. Rapid developments in technology have enabled them to
continue in their educational development, even while deployed.
The ability to continue in one's educational pursuits is a quality of
life issue that is not necessarily always at the top of a soldier's
list. However, many military personnel are only able to pursue higher
education by leaving the military. I believe the maintenance of a
viable distance learning program for higher education could be a useful
retention mechanism to keep highly motivated individuals in the
service.
Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator would yield, the Senator raises an
interesting point. I would be interested in learning of some of the
types of initiatives that are under way that may prove useful in
retaining personnel in the military.

[[Page S9401]]

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator. I am particularly proud of one such
program which is managed by the Georgia College and State University.
The Distance Education Unit and the Department of Government there were
recently awarded a contract by the Navy to provide two graduate courses
aboard the USS Carl Vinson which is deployed in the Pacific Ocean. The
courses use two-way video and audio which links educators at the school
with students on board the Carl Vinson. We all knew that aircraft
carriers were small cities, but this Senator was pleasantly surprised
to see that sailors could take graduate level courses while at sea.
Mr. INOUYE. I am aware of the Carl Vinson project. It is certainly a
promising concept, but are we providing any educational opportunities
for service personnel nearing retirement or leaving the military due to
the draw down of the military?
Mr. CLELAND. That is a very good question. I am told that more than
50 percent of military personnel reentering civilian life either change
or lose their jobs in the first year after leaving the military. Given
this, I believe we should consider providing opportunities for job
training and placement for active-duty service members nearing
separation or retirement from service without regard to their duty
locations.
Clayton College and State University has developed a program that
could serve as a worthwhile demonstration project to demonstrate how
technology can be utilized to provide pre-separation training for
civilian jobs to military personnel. The program would provide training
via the Internet and other technology to active-duty personnel at their
duty locations for specific, existing job opportunities which would be
available upon their separation from the military. The program would
then link these personnel to these specific jobs ensuring that when the
leave the military, employment is available.
I am not immediately aware of any initiatives underway that would
offer similar opportunities. It is my view that we should encourage the
Department of Defense to explore such initiatives, perhaps in
conjunction with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the Senator from Georgia. He makes a good
point, and I hope the Department of Defense will take a look at such
initiatives in the future.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank Senator Cleland for his remarks. He is a good
friend of America's men and women in uniform.
Mr. CLELAND. I thank my colleagues for their leadership and for
allowing me to speak on this matter.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition to the
fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense appropriations bill.
Once again, we have loaded up this bill with unnecessary,
extravagant, and flat-out wasteful items. In a time when we are cutting
programs and fighting for a true balanced budget, we cannot afford to
insulate any department from scrutiny as we seek to reduce the Federal
debt. Unfortunately, the DoD budget remains immune to any and all
attempts at responsible spending.
Mr. President, I offered an amendment to this bill that aimed to
invest fully in the best bargain in the Defense Department. According
to a National Guard study, the average cost to train and equip an
active duty soldier is $73,000 per year, while it costs $17,000 per
year to train and equip a National Guard soldier. The cost of
maintaining Army National Guard units is just 23 percent of the cost of
maintaining Active Army units.
It failed, however, but that should not come as a surprise. DoD and a
complicit Congress have never been known as a frugal or practical when
it comes to defense spending. From $436 hammers to $640 toilet seats to
$2 billion bombers that don't work and the department doesn't seem to
want to use, we have a storied history of wasting our tax dollars. I
presented an opportunity to spend defense dollars on something that
works and is worthwhile, but the lobby for the wasteful and unnecessary
Super Hornet prevailed.
Speaking of which, the bill appropriates $2.9 billion for the
procurement of 30 Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.
The current Hornet program has been proven reliable and cost-
effective. Why do we want to replace the Hornet with a bloated, cost-
prohibitive aircraft that offers marginal benefits over a reliable
fighter?
This bill also contradicts the House's overwhelming recommendation on
Super Hornet procurement. Twice, once in their authorization bill and
again in their appropriations bill, the House, by margins of nearly 300
members, voted to procure 27 Super Hornets in fiscal year 1999.
The House correctly notes that the Navy asks for an inexplicable
procurement increase from fiscal year 1998; that the Navy's low rate
initial production schedule is not consistent with its procurement
objective of 548 aircraft; and that the wing drop problem has not been
resolved.
Mr. President, it seems we have thrown rationality out the window
when it comes to this plane. Judging by the Super Hornet's past
performance, I'm sure we'll be hearing more about it soon.
Finally, Mr. President, authors of the bill have again loaded it up
with projects and hundreds of millions of dollars the Pentagon didn't
even ask for. Just to give my colleagues a taste of these extravagant
morsels, the bill adds: $78.5 million for 8 additional UH-60
helicopters; $30.0 million for JAVELIN anti-tank missiles; $208.3
million for Marine Corps procurement priorities; $50 million for
advance procurement of the LHD-8 amphibious ship, which is a program
DoD didn't even want to fund next year; $65.7 million for Humvee
vehicles; $90 million for C-135 aircraft; and $40 million for F-15
Eagles.
Further, there is $1.8 billion in additional funds for the deployment
of U.S. troops in Bosnia that are designated as ``emergency'' funds.
The Bosnia mission is no longer an emergency. It is a long-term
commitment for the United States military, and we should pay for it on
budget.
Mr. President, this is shameful. We have a duty to act responsibly
with our constituents tax dollars. Instead of looking after our
constituents, we continue to pick their pockets.
We have to make smart choices, Mr. President. A truly balanced
federal budget is in sight for the first time in three decades. But we
are not going to be able to maintain a balanced budget, let alone start
bringing down the federal debt, so long as we continue to commit to
programs and force structures that are so blatantly unaffordable. We
must continue to fight for further spending reductions until we achieve
the most effective and cost efficient military which serves our
national security interests.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Prostate Cancer Research

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Department
of Defense's research in prostate cancer. I know that this program has
no greater champion than the distinguished Chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens.
Throughout my time in Congress, I have fought for women's health
initiatives. Women's health is one of my highest priorities and it
always will be. However, I also strongly support efforts to improve the
health of men. One such effort that I believe deserves our attention is
prostate cancer research.
In my home state of Maryland alone, 3,500 men receive the ominous
diagnosis of prostate cancer each year. Nationwide, the number soars to
over 200,000. Even more frightening, 42,000 American men lose their
lives to this ruthless killer annually. This means that every 15
minutes, 1 man somewhere in our country dies from prostate cancer, and
during the same time span, 5 more men are newly diagnosed with the
disease.
I am very pleased that the frequency of prostate cancer screening has
increased over the past five years. These efforts have led to an
overall decrease in the prostate cancer death rate. The importance of
early detection through regular screening cannot be overstated. When
prostate cancer is detected early, survival rates are over 90%. But,
when detected late, prostate cancer kills 70% of its victims. The
increased emphasis on the use of current screening techniques has
certainly been a step in the right direction. However, we can, and
must, do better for the men of our country. How? Through improvement

[[Page S9402]]

of diagnostic screening and imaging technology, we can make detection
of prostate cancer easier and more efficient. We've done it before--
mammograms have made screening for breast cancer a much more reliable
process. We must do the same for prostate cancer.
Last year, Congress provided $40 million to the Department of Defense
for prostate cancer research. Overall, $130 million in government-
funded prostate cancer research was performed, compared with $650
million for breast cancer. Of course, we all recognize the importance
of fighting breast cancer. It is a major threat to the women of our
nation and the fight to find new and better prevention methods must
continue. I think it is time we started fighting prostate cancer with
the same tenacity.
In this year's Defense Appropriations bill we have provided $40
million for prostate cancer research. In addition to funds for peer
review prostate cancer research, we have provided funding to the Walter
Reed Army Medical Center for research on prostate cancer diagnostic
imaging. This research is extremely important, as it could pave the way
to better, faster, and more reliable screening and diagnosis.
One in every ten American men will develop prostate cancer at some
point during his life. We need to target sufficient resources for
research into the causes, treatment and cure of prostate cancer.
I hope that when the Defense Appropriations bill is in Conference, we
will increase funding for prostate cancer research. Increased funding
is necessary to give our scientists and researchers the tools they need
to combat this deadly disease.
We are blessed with great medical scientists who are scattered across
our country at universities, medical schools, and government research
agencies. They are an incredible resource. I believe that we owe it to
ourselves, to our children, and to the American people to ensure that
these great men and women have the support they need to continue their
efforts to bring the people of our nation a better, healthier tomorrow.

DOD Impact Aid

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to express
my concern about the lack of funding within the Senate's Department of
Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 for schools that have
been heavily impacted by their proximity to military installations.
Fortunately, the House bill does include $35 million for this
purpose, and I want to put my colleagues on notice that I will be
working through my position on the House-Senate conference committee to
see that this funding is preserved.
This extra assistance is needed by schools on or near our military
bases because their tax base is eroded by the large amount of federal
land taken off the tax rolls. In addition, military personnel often are
not required to pay local taxes, which support the schools, even if
they have children enrolled in those schools. The DOD funding would be
aimed at those schools most in need of the extra aid--school districts
whose student population is made up of at least 20 percent military
children.
This funding is sufficiently important to the quality of life of
military personnel and their families that both the House and Senate
fiscal year 1999 Defense Authorization bills authorize $35 million for
this purpose. It is my strong hope that the Congress will see fit to
include this funding in the final version of the Defense Appropriations
bill.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, during the deliberations over the fiscal
year 1999 Defense Authorization bill, I offered an amendment to
increase spending for our nation's veterans medical needs. The
amendment, offered on June 25th and numbered as 2982 would have allowed
the transfer of $329 million from the defense budget to support the VA
medical budget. The amendment would have transferred funds so as to
avoid harming the readiness of the Armed Forces and the quality of life
of military personnel and their families.
The amendment's description was incomplete as to the listing of
cosponsors and I would like to correct the record at this time. Along
with Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico,
also a longtime champion of veterans, should have been included as a
cosponsor.
Although the amendment did not receive the support of a majority of
my colleagues, I appreciate the cosponsorship by Senator Bingaman and
Senator Wellstone. I also appreciate the support of the 35 other
Senators who voted in favor of increasing VA medical funding.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I tell the Senate, there are now three
amendments that are not disposed of, to my knowledge: the Graham
amendment on space and two Harkin amendments. I call on those Senators
to ask what they intend to do.
Mr. HARKIN. One amendment; I have one amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. I will be happy to eliminate one of the two.
Mr. President, again, I call on the Senators involved to inform us if
they going to proceed with the amendment.
Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Florida
is going to make a motion concerning the space amendment. I ask someone
to inquire about that amendment.
May I inquire of the Senator from Iowa, does he intend to proceed
with his amendment?
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

adak naval facility at adak, alaska

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee knows, we have been working for some time with the Natives of
the Aleut Corporation, the Navy and the Department of the Interior on
an effective plan for the reuse of Adak Naval Base, and I thank the
Chairman for the inclusion of funding to help resolve remaining
environmental problems with the facilities at Adak.
The Aleut Corporation, one of Alaska's 12 Native regional
corporations, is the only entity that has expressed an interest in
assuming the closed base, and has proposed a land exchange involving
the Navy and the Department of the Interior. The Senate Energy
committee, as you know, is considering and has held a hearing on S.
1488, which would authorize an exchange of property that would promote
the reuse of Adak and improve the Aleutian refuge through incorporation
of Aleut Corporation inholdings. This legislation is designed to ratify
an agreement that will very shortly be executed by the Aleut
Corporation and the Departments of the Navy and the Interior.
Mr. STEVENS. I am familiar with that legislation and fully support
its adoption. In closing out its operations and responsibilities on
Adak I understand the Navy wishes to transfer from Navy ownership as
much as the base as possible; this includes both facilities that have
foreseeable reuse and those that do not. Many of the moth-balled
buildings on Adak were constructed before restrictions were imposed on
the use of asbestos and lead paint. The environmental conditions at
Adak, to which anyone who has visited there can attest, take a hard and
quick toll on buildings and other facilities, especially those that are
unused and not maintained. The Committee has included $15 million to
resolve potential environmental hazards from deteriorating facilities.
This funding will help to protect those who move to Adak to participate
in its economic revitalization.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. With the expectation that all the parties to the Adak
exchange will sign an agreement within the next few weeks, it is also
my hope that the Conference Committee on S. 2312 would consider the
inclusion of the language ratifying the agreement.
Mr. STEVENS. If all parties to the exchange are supportive, I would
be open to the possibility of having the Conference consider that
language.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the chairman, the distinguished senior Senator
from Alaska.

national advanced telecommunications and applications center

Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy

[[Page S9403]]

with the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee. I was disappointed that the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee did not include funding for the National Advanced
Telecommunications and Applications Center in the Research Triangle
Park in North Carolina. I ask the chairman whether this is an
indication that the subcommittee disapproves spending for this project
or if it is merely because sufficient funds were unavailable?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from North Carolina will be pleased to know
that the subcommittee believes that this project is very worthy, but we
did not directly provide funding in FY 1999.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Therefore, may I assume that the chairman would
support a reprogramming request from any branch of the Department of
Defense if that branch found that unavoidable delays in its other
programs made funding available for the NATAC?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank the chairman. Mr. President, I yield the
floor.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I understand the Senator from Iowa will ask to be
recognized, and I urge Members of the Senate to stay around. In my
opinion, we are very close to final passage. We are very close to final
passage. I expect final passage within 20 minutes. I might not get my
expectations, right?
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3478

(Purpose: Express sense of Senate regarding payroll tax relief)

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution on behalf of Senator Kerrey and Senator Moynihan and Senator
Breaux, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Kerrey, for
himself, Mr. Moynihan and Mr. Breaux, proposes an amendment
numbered 3478.

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

At the appropriate place, insert:

SECTION 1. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING PAYROLL TAX RELIEF.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) The payroll tax under the Federal Insurance
Contributions Act (FICA) is the biggest, most regressive tax
paid by working families.
(2) The payroll tax constitutes a 15.3 percent tax burden
on the wages and self-employment income of each American,
with 12.4 percent of the payroll tax used to pay social
security benefits to current beneficiaries and 2.9 percent
used to pay the medicare benefits of current beneficiaries.
(3) The amount of wages and self-employment income subject
to the social security portion of the payroll tax is capped
at $68,400. Therefore, the lower a family's income, the more
they pay in payroll tax as a percentage of income. The
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that for those
families who pay payroll taxes, 80 percent pay more in
payroll taxes than in income taxes.
(4) In 1996, the median household income was $35,492, and a
family earning that amount and taking standard deductions and
exemptions paid $2,719 in Federal income tax, but lost $5,430
in income to the payroll tax.
(5) Ownership of wealth is essential for everyone to have a
shot at the American dream, but the payroll tax is the
principal burden to savings and wealth creation for working
families.
(6) Since 1983, the payroll tax has been higher than
necessary to pay current benefits.
(7) Since most of the payroll tax receipts are deposited in
the social security trust funds, which masks the real amount
of Government borrowing, those whom the payroll tax hits
hardest, working families, have shouldered a disproportionate
share of the Federal budget deficit reduction and, therefore,
a disproportionate share of the creation of the Federal
budget surplus.
(8) Over the next 10 years, the Federal Government will
generate a budget surplus of $1,550,000,000,000, and all but
$32,000,000,000 of that surplus will be generated by excess
payroll taxes.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) if Congress decides to provide tax relief, reducing the
burden of payroll taxes should be a top priority; and
(2) Congress and the President should work to reduce this
payroll tax burden on American families.

Mr. KERREY. I am delighted to be joined by Senators Moynihan and
Breaux in offering this important Sense of the Senate on reducing the
payroll tax burden. This Sense of the Senate is simple: the payroll tax
is the biggest, most regressive tax that working families in this
country face. According to the CBO, 80 percent of American families pay
more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.
Here's what that means. The average household income in 1996 was
$35,492. That family, taking the standard deductions and exemptions,
paid $2,719 in Federal income tax. But they paid a whopping $5,430 in
payroll taxes--double what they paid in income taxes!
What this Sense of the Senate says is that if we talk about relieving
the tax burden on American's families, we ought to look first at the
payroll tax burden. After all, of the over $1.5 trillon surplus we
expect to generate over the next ten years, all but $32 billion is
being generated through payroll taxes. If anyone is going to get tax
relief in this country, it ought to be the working people responsible
for that surplus. I urge my colleagues to support this Sense of the
Senate.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, my colleague Senator Kerrey, with whom I
am pleased to cosponsor this Sense of the Senate resolution, has it
exactly right. The payroll tax is regressive. The statistic he quoted
bears repeating. Among families that pay payroll taxes 80 percent pay
more in payroll taxes than in income taxes.
If--and I say if--we are going to have a tax cut look no further than
the payroll tax. Albert Hunt, writing in today's Wall Street Journal,
agrees, noting that for most families it is ``the most onerous levy. .
..''
Even excluding interest income, the Social Security Trust Funds will
generate $698 billion of surpluses over the next 10 years. That is just
about enough to finance the 2 percentage point reduction in the payroll
tax that Senator Kerrey and I have proposed in our comprehensive Social
Security rescue plan.
In contrast, the operating budget will only have a $32 billion
surplus over the next 10 years--and no significant surplus until 2006.
Finally, maybe we shouldn't be considering any tax cuts. Those
surpluses can easily evaporate, even in the absence of a recession.
Growth of one percent for the next two or three years --rather than the
2 percent projected by CBO--just about wipes out surpluses for the next
several years.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor
of the Sense of the Senate offered by Senator Kerrey and accepted
tonight by unanimous consent regarding payroll tax relief.
We keep hearing the good news about surpluses but of the $1.55
trillion surplus over the next decade, all but $32 billion comes from
the social security trust fund--from payroll taxes paid by working
Americans on their wages--taxes that American workers paid to insure
the viability of their Social Security benefits.
Of families who pay payroll taxes, 80 percent pay more in payroll
taxes than in income taxes. The payroll tax is the most regressive tax
in America, disproportionately burdening low income families. Remember
that almost 50 percent of households in this country earn under $35,000
per year and most of this income is from wages which are subject to the
payroll tax. Given these facts, the payroll tax cut is clearly the tax
cut this Congress should be discussing.
And we should be discussing it along with the reforms necessary to
fix Social Security for all Americans for all time. I know there are
many Senators

[[Page S9404]]

here who share my sentiments. I served with Senator Gregg on a
bipartisan commission that thorougly studied this issue and we have
recommended a comprehensive reform package. Senator Kerrey and Senator
Moynihan have been working on a bill. Others in this bodies are also
working on social security reforms. I look forward to working with all
of my colleagues in a bipartisan effort to not only reduce taxes but to
shore up social security and create wealth for working Americans.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3478) was 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 state for the record, according to my
understanding, the only amendment we have not disposed of that was
listed on the two lists is the amendment that Senator Harkin is about
ready to discuss.
Does any Senator have another amendment?
Mr. President--I repeat the request--does any Senator have another
amendment?
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from
Iowa will speak in a minute. And no Senator has raised any amendment to
be considered; so, therefore, I ask unanimous consent that no more
amendments be in order to this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I further ask unanimous consent that following the
statement of the Senator from Iowa, we shall immediately go to third
reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey
also be recognized for 10 minutes prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk that
basically would equalize the treatment that the Budget Committee gave
to the defense side of the ledger, would equalize that with the
nondefense side of the ledger.
Now, let me try to explain it as best I can. A couple of years ago in
a situation involving Social Security here on the Senate floor, the
Parliamentarian of the Senate ruled in a way that gave the chairman of
the Budget Committee the authority to decide whether or not scoring
would be done under the CBO estimates and rules or under OMB.
This year, using that authority, the chairman of the Budget Committee
sent a letter dated April 27, 1998, to the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens. This letter, among other
things, basically said--and I will quote from the letter:

Staff have also identified $2.0 billion in potential policy
outlays scorekeeping adjustments. If the Administration's own
policy initiatives are legislated for the DWCF, I will
exercise my authority to score the legislation recognizing
the administration's outlay estimates.

What that means, in ``bureaucratese,'' is that the chairman of the
Budget Committee decided to use his authority to use the
administration's policy initiatives--read that to be OMB--to adjust the
outlay figures for the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
What did that add up to? We looked at it and those adjustments added
up to $2.2 billion--$2.2 billion under OMB. Then the Budget Committee
identified another $737 million in asset sales to come up with $2.9
billion additional for the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
But I am looking at the $2.2 billion. Forget about the other. The
$2.2 billion came about because the chairman of the Budget Committee
decided to use the administration's own policy initiatives and use the
administration's outlay estimates from OMB. Mr. President, what that
means is that the Budget Committee chairman has the authority because
of a ruling by the Parliamentarian of this body that he can decide
whether to use OMB or CBO estimates for outlay purposes.
I think it is appropriate to ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record a copy of the letter from the chairman of the Senate Budget
Committee, Senator Domenici, to Senator Stevens, dated April 27, 1998.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Committee on the Budget,

Washington, DC, April 27, 1998.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am reporting to you on your amendment
to S. Con. Res. 86, the Senate-passed Budget Resolution,
concerning defense and non-defense outlay scoring. Over the
recent recess, representatives of the Department of Defense
(DoD), the Office of Management and the Budget (OMB), and the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have met and discussed
these issues. As a result, we have identified from $2.6
billion to $2.9 billion in outlay reductions based on asset
sales and proposed policy changes in the President's 1999 DoD
budget request, including: (1) management initiatives for the
Defense Working Capital Funds (DWCF) and, (2) alterations in
classified activities in two Air Force accounts.
These identified outlay scoring adjustments for policies
enumerated here do not prejudge other technical adjustments
that might be considered with this year's reported defense
authorizations or appropriations bills.
If legislation provides for defense asset sales subject to
appropriations, appropriate savings will be scored. I
understand the assets currently being considered would
generate between $0.6 billion and $0.9 billion in negative
outlays. The precise amount would, of course, depend on the
text provisions reported to the Senate.
Staff have also identified $2.0 billion in potential policy
outlay scorekeeping adjustments. If the Administration's own
policy initiatives are legislated for the DWCF, I will
exercise my authority to score the legislation recognizing
the Administration's outlay estimates. For the classified
policy initiatives in intelligence community activities, I
will respect your judgment that the proposed policy
initiatives will have the downward impact on outlays asserted
by the Department of Defense and that the legislation
reported to the Senate would not reverse or materially alter
this impact, and will, therefore, score the outlays for
reported legislation appropriately.
The disagreements between CBO, OMB and DoD on outlay
estimates for the President's defense budget are not new. I
believe Congress must insist on the most accurate projects
from both the executive branch and our own estimators.
Accordingly, I believe we should work together to achieve the
following results.
1. Prompt submission of the annual joint report to Congress
required by 10 U.S.C. 226 concerning CBO and OMB scoring of
outlays on December 15 of each year;
2. The routine and timely transmission by CBO of its
scoring of defense budget requests and relevant legislation
to the appropriate representatives of DoD's Office of the
Comptroller and OMB;
3. An analysis by CBO and the Administration, submitted as
a part of their fiscal year 2000 Presidential budget
presentations, of the actual outlays and rates that occurred
for fiscal year 1998 for the Department of Defense with: (a)
the outlays and outlay rates originally estimated by CBO and
the Administration, respectively, for the fiscal year 1998
Department of Defense budget when that budget was originally
presented to Congress, and (b) any revised outlays and outlay
rates estimated for the final appropriations legislation,
pursuant to Section 251 of the Balanced Budget Enforcement
and Deficit

[[Page S9405]]

Control Act, for the Department of Defense for fiscal year
1998, including supplementals, transfers, rescissions, and
any other adjustments;
4. An analysis by CBO and the Administration, submitted as
a part of their fiscal year 2000 Presidential budget
presentations, of the outlays and outlay rates currently
estimated to be appropriate for fiscal year 1999 for the
Department of Defense with: (a) the outlays and outlay rates
originally estimated by CBO and the Administration for the
fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense budget when that
budget was originally presented to Congress, and (b) any
revised outlays and outlay rates estimated for the final
appropriations legislation, pursuant to Section 251 of the
Balanced Budget Enforcement and Deficit Control Act, to date,
for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999, including
supplementals, transfers, rescissions, and any other
adjustments;
5. A timely explanation by DoD of (a) any policy
initiatives in the fiscal year 2000 DoD budget that, in DoD's
judgement, CBO did not recognize in the latter's scoring of
the fiscal year 2000 DoD budget, (b) DoD's analysis of how
such policy initiatives will affect outlays in fiscal year
2000 and subsequent years, and (c) how DoD intends to
implement the proposed policy initiatives.
Pursuant to your amendment we are also looking into the
issue of non-defense outlays scoring and will report back to
you shortly.
I look forward to working with you on this year's DoD
appropriation and on action to ensure we have the most
accurate estimate possible for defense expenditures in future
years.
With best regards,
Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman.

Mr. HARKIN. Now, why am I taking the time here late at night to talk
about this? Because we are about to go out on a break. We are going to
go out for the month of August. In the first week of September when we
come back, the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations Subcommittee, the largest of the nondefense
appropriations subcommittees--and that is my colleague and my friend,
Senator Specter from Pennsylvania--will be calling us together to mark
up the nondefense portion of the appropriations bill.
Right now, the allocation that was given to our subcommittee with
respect to outlays is almost $300 million below a freeze from last
year--$300 million below a freeze from last year.
The House, using those figures, marked up a bill, and the only way
they marked it up was by completely eliminating all of the funding for
the summer jobs program and all of the funding for the heating
assistance for the elderly and poor--the LIHEAP program. They just
eliminated all of that, and then they came in with the allocations that
they had.
What my amendment basically says is that the chairman of the Budget
Committee ought to apply the same rationale, the same decision, on
using OMB estimates for nondefense as he did for defense. We need the
outlays that this amendment will give us to fund programs important to
Members on both sides of the aisle. This is not a Democrat amendment.
Now, we have heard many calls on the other side of the aisle to get
more funding for IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
We have had more calls from the other side of the aisle to fund more
programs for the National Institutes of Health. We have heard calls on
this side of the aisle for more funding for Head Start, for low-income
heating energy assistance programs for the elderly and the working
poor. This cuts across both sides of this aisle. Those are just a few
of the programs that will be drastically cut if we don't have the
figures that could be given to us by the chairman of the Budget
Committee.
Now, I will point out one thing. Recently, the Senators here voted on
a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It passed 99-0--I don't know who was
missing, but it passed 99-0-- a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that
would raise NIH funding by $2 billion next year. That increase alone
would require over $600 million in outlays. And I just said that our
allocation puts us $300 million below a freeze.

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to my friend and chairman.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague. When the distinguished Senator
from Iowa points out that the vote was 99-0, is the Senator aware that
when we sought the transfer, that it was turned down 57-41?
Mr. HARKIN. I am aware that the Senator from Pennsylvania, I think,
within a week after that, offered an amendment----
Mr. SPECTER. An amendment on which the Senator from Iowa joined this
Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. HARKIN. I proudly did so.
Mr. SPECTER. I believe the Senator from Iowa raises a valid point on
having the same scoring for the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education as for the Department of Defense. I am
optimistic that in working with the distinguished chairman of the
Budget Committee there are ways that we can resolve these differences
on policy grounds. The Senator from Iowa and I have worked very closely
for many years now, when the Senator from Iowa was chairman and I was
ranking--in reverse. We will move ahead with our markup in the
subcommittee on September 1, the day after we get back. The chairman
has agreed to have the markup on September 3 to bring this complex bill
to the floor at an early date. I have taken the preliminary step in a
very small meeting with Secretary Shalala of Health and Human Services
and Secretary Riley of Education and Secretary Herman of Labor, to try
to ascertain their real priorities so that we can try to move this bill
ahead and get it passed.
I think the Senator from Iowa is performing a real service in
highlighting the necessity for similar scoring so we can have
additional funds. I think we will get there. I thank my colleague for
his yielding and for his cooperation this year and through the years.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank my chairman for his kind words. We have worked
collaboratively. I could not ask for a better chairman than Senator
Specter. We have worked closely together. We have talked privately
about this and, quite frankly, I believe we are going to be able to
work this out. That is why I will, at the appropriate time, withdraw my
amendment, because I do believe we are going to be able to work this
out with the chairman of the Budget Committee and with the chairman of
the Labor-HHS appropriations subcommittee. I believe we will be able to
work this out in a manner that will be, I hope, conducive to getting
the money that we need immediately--just the basic requirements that we
want for the National Institutes of Health, that we want for LIHEAP,
and a lot of the other programs that so many Members support here. I
wanted to raise this issue because I think it is vitally important that
we use the same set of scoring for both defense and nondefense.
So, Mr. President, with the assurances of my chairman that we will be
able to get this thing worked out, I just wanted to refer to one thing
on the chart. With the reallocation, with the amount of money we would
get from the rescoring, we would have $770 million. That would get us
the money that we need for NIH. That would get us the money that we
need for LIHEAP and for the other programs--Head Start and others--that
we need, which Senators support here.
Mr. President, again, I raise this issue because it is vitally
important. I don't know how many other Senators want to speak on this
issue. But I would be willing to yield the floor at this time for any
other Senators who might want to speak on the issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I want to hear the response of
the Senator from New Mexico, because in a private conversation we just
had here there was an assurance that I would like to hear publicly made
and then I will be able to respond.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator will give me 3 minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes of the time I have
to the Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe one of the most difficult
bills to appropriate and stay within the caps and the allocations under
the Balanced Budget Act is the bill that the distinguished Senator,
Senator Harkin, is referring to. It is difficult every single year. It
will be difficult this year; he knows it and I know it.
I want to make sure that everybody understands that the Senator from
New Mexico did not adopt OMB numbers in arriving at the corrections
that

[[Page S9406]]

were made in the amounts of money available for the Defense
appropriations bill. We will be very glad to show Senators precisely
what we did. In fact, I am going to insert a statement into the
Record--I won't give it--showing that we actually made policy
adjustments that permitted the changes in the expectation of
expenditures, and then on top of that we allowed for the sale of assets
that were a certainty, and we counted those sales in terms of receipts
that could be spent in this bill.
What I am going to say to Senator Specter, chairman of the
committee--and I told him this already--is that the staff and I are
going to work with them, and we intend to do everything in our power to
adjust the numbers so that they get the benefit of any policy changes
that are justifiably on the side of OMB's different numbers. If that
yields more money to spend, we are going to do that, and we are going
to try our best. Let me repeat that we did not use OMB's numbers; we
used OMB policy adjustments in a very confused procurement account, and
they convinced us that in the policy that they were going to adopt,
there would be more expenditures than we had expected--or less,
whichever the case may be that yields more money to spend.
I also want to say to the distinguished chairman and ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
that they chose last year to forward-fund a lot of their accounts. I am
not critical. What they did is, they said, on a number of big accounts,
we will not fund them for the whole year. We will fund them at the end
of the year, thus, getting charged for only a small amount of money.
Now, I can't help it that the chickens have come home to roost. The
money is now being spent in this year, and we don't even have to
appropriate; we already spent it. I can't fix that on every bill.
So, Mr. President, let me just say to the Senate, the bill, which
Senator Specter will chair and Senator Harkin is ranking member on, is
the most difficult bill we have. And this Senator, in my responsibility
to the Senate, will do everything I can to see that the numbers are
accurate and that we maximize the amount of outlays. It is outlays they
need; they don't need any budget authority. I will do that as soon as
practicable, and our staff and theirs will start working as soon as
they want us to.
The amendment and its author do not accurately characterize what has
been done respecting outlays for the National Defense budget function.
There has been no arbitrary adjustment of CBO's scoring of defense
outlays as some characterize.
Instead, the following actions have been taken:
The DoD Authorization bill contains legislation to reduce outlays in
DoD's Working Capital funds by $1.3 billion.
The DoD Authorization bill also implements policies that would reduce
outlays in two Air Force accounts in classified programs by $700
million.
The DoD Appropriations bill we are debating today contains a new
Pentagon Renovation Fund; there has been a scoring adjustment for this
new fund to bring its outlays in line with typical military
construction outlay rates, rather than the higher overall rates that
CBO would otherwise attribute to this spending. This adjustment amounts
to about $190 million.
That's the totality of any outlay scoring adjustments in this
appropriations bill. There are no other adjustments to CBO scoring. I
believe it is important to realize that for the adjustments that have
been made, in each case there is a specific legislative and/or policy
provision that is key to the adjustment, and each legislative provision
should have a material impact on outlays.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. STEVENS. The remaining speaker is the Senator from New Jersey, is
that correct?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished chairman
that I am going to be very brief, in view of what has just been said. I
trust the chairman of the Budget Committee. There is some time
available, is there not, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Very quickly, I am pleased to hear the assurances.
First, I commend the Senator from Iowa for bringing this to our
attention because we were both of the same mind. Even as I read the
letter sent to Senator Stevens and Senator Thurmond, to me, it looked
like we were going to be put in a position where defense was going to
be particularly well treated, and nondefense was going to be left out.
But we have had an interesting colloquy here, a dialog, and I trust the
chairman of the Budget Committee. I work with him all the time and have
great respect for him.
When he gives us an assurance that there will be no distinction, or
no difference between the treatment given to defense and nondefense, I
don't have to go a lot further. We have heard it. We have heard it
directly from the chairman. We have heard it in this public forum.
Mr. President, I yield the time I have in the interest of moving this
along.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, under the agreement
the amendments, if they are not called up, just go away. We do not
offer them all. But the Senator is at liberty to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. Was it called up?
Mr. STEVENS. It was not called up.
Mr. HARKIN. That is fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was
read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to H.R. 4103, all after the enacting clause is stricken, the
text of S. 2132, as amended, is inserted in lieu thereof.
The House bill is considered read a third time.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that we stop there for just one
moment for leaders to have a chance to talk about this bill just
briefly.
I want to make a statement to the Senate. I often make mistakes. I
have not made one as great as the one I made tonight when I interrupted
the Senator from West Virginia. I had no intention of interrupting him.
I know he intended to make his speech. I assured him that he would have
the time to make the speech that he wished. We had entered into an
agreement concerning a time limit on the amendment of the Senator from
Illinois.
I deeply regret the misunderstanding that occurred. I know my good
friend from West Virginia has a long and serious speech to make about
the war powers and the amendment that was offered by the Senator from
Illinois concerning the power of Congress to declare war.
I admire and respect him greatly, and I sincerely regret that
incident.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the
Senate will momentarily proceed to passage of the Department of Defense
appropriations bill.
But I can't let this moment escape without first commending the
chairman, Senator Stevens, and his ranking member, Senator Inouye, for
the unbelievable speed in which they have been able to handle this
appropriations bill and bring it to a close.
They are absolutely the best when it comes to knowing this
legislation, and perhaps all legislation. I think they probably have
set a record. But I think they did it in a way that was sensitive to
all Senators' needs. And it took a lot of cooperation on both sides of
the aisle.
So I thank Senator Stevens. He set an example for all of us to
follow. And the better part of wisdom was for me to get out of the way
and let him do his job. He did a great job. I thank him, and I know
that all Senators extend their thanks to him, and congratulations.
Having said that, the Senate still must consider two additional items
before I can announce the voting situation for the rest of the evening.
Those items are the Emergency Farm Financial Relief Act, and
legislation coming from the House relative to H-

[[Page S9407]]

1B, the Nonmigrant Immigrant Program.

CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE SENATE AND CONDITIONAL
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an adjournment resolution to the desk
calling for a conditional adjournment for the August recess, and ask
that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 114) was agreed to, as
follows:

S. Con. Res. 114

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That, in consonance with section 132(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, when the Senate
recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Friday, July
31, 1998, Saturday, August 1, 1998, or Sunday, August 2,
1998, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader or his
designee in accordance with this concurrent resolution, it
stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, August 31
or Tuesday, September 1, 1998, or until such time on that day
as may be specified by the Majority Leader or his designee in
the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second
day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs
first; and that when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Friday, August 7, 1998, it stand adjourned until noon
on Wednesday, September 9, 1998, or until noon on the second
day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs
first.
Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House, acting jointly after consultation with the
Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the
House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and House,
respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it.

____________________