[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)

       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).


                           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.

     

                          ____________________